Mothers Demand Action (MDA) is a grassroots group trying to make a difference. I only became familiar with their new ad campaign this morning from a news report. The link provided above will take you to the MDA page with three graphics being used to convey the message that banning guns in America will protect children. Personally, I think this borders on propaganda, using distortions of reality to push their agenda. But that’s just my initial reaction to the ads.
In each ad two children are featured, one holding a semi-automatic rifle and the other an item much less harmful in appearance, but banned in some schools or in general. One ad pits the rifle against a copy of Little Red Riding Hood. The caption indicates that the book is banned in some schools because it shows a bottle of wine on the cover illustration. According to ABC News, one specific edition with this illustration has been banned in two California school districts.
The next ad features one child with a ball and the other (improperly) holding a rifle (improper because his finger is in the trigger housing, that’s gun safety 101, never put your finger near the trigger until you are aiming at your target and ready to shoot). The caption indicates that the game of dodge ball has been banned because it is too violent, and yet guns are still allowed.
The third image features a foreign brand of candy, banned in the U.S. because it contains a small toy inside of a chocolate egg. “We ban candy but we don’t ban rifles” is the message.
I realize MDA isn’t saying whether or not these other objects should be banned, they are saying that since these seemingly harmless objects are banned, then why not ban guns, which are clearly more dangerous? At least that’s what I assume they are saying. And it’s not a bad argument to make. If we ban harmless things in the interest of children’s safety, then why not ban harmful things for the same purpose?
It’s logical, right? I don’t think so. Maybe it is superficially logical, but that’s it. I understand the frustration in America over guns and their potential for harm, but we can’t blame the piece of property for the damage done by the property owner and operator. I’ve said it before and I will continue to say it because I think it is valid: we cannot sacrifice liberty for security.
We can make America safer without the removal of personal liberty. Individual agency is part of life, we can’t, and shouldn’t want to, eliminate it. America will not be strengthened by restricting individual agency and liberty; it will be strengthened through proper use of agency and proper respect for liberty.
Children will not be safer if we remove all guns, they will be safer if they are taught how to conduct themselves appropriately, because they will become adults one day and if they are well educated, morally, they will not harm others. Don’t believe me? Let’s try it. Let’s teach peace and cooperation, not through making everyone the same, not through political correctness, and not through regulating so much that individual agency is restricted. Let’s teach appropriate and responsible use of agency and see what happens.