A year after Michigan lawmakers passed a safe storage law to prevent minors from coming in contact with unattended firearms, the measure has been used in 36 cases across the state, with charges having been filed against parents, grandparents, cousins, and, in one case, a babysitter. But an interesting pattern has emerged, an elephant in the room that everyone seems too uncomfortable to call out. Not today. 

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald, a Democrat, says that it is difficult to judge the law’s impact as charges are typically only filed after an accident, but also claims the law makes people more aware than they have been in previous years.

“I think the passing of the law is one of the reasons that people are more aware than they were maybe four years ago,” said McDonald

How could you know what people are more aware of or even paying attention to? Let’s look at something more concrete, like numbers that don’t lie. Of the 36 cases being prosecuted across Michigan, 25 are concentrated in just six counties. You might think six counties sounds like a lot of space to cover, but let’s put things into perspective. Michigan contains 83 counties, meaning 70% of these cases happen in about 7% of the state’s counties. I hear the argument already. But these counties add up to much of the state’s population: Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Genesee, Kent, and Newaygo. So naturally, this is where more incidents must take place. It’s only partially true. These six counties account for approximately 49.3% of the state’s population, so a disparity remains, but that disparity isn’t where I hang my hat. 

Let’s turn our attention to the most dangerous cities in Michigan and notice that these six counties exist in two clusters that either contain or are adjacent to these cities, where you better double-check your locks at night and stay indoors after dark. So what’s my point? Look at a Michigan election results map when you have a moment. 

I won’t beat around the bush any longer. I alluded to the idea that I would be that guy today, and I hate to disappoint, so here it is. Densely populated cities across the nation tend to attract and breed patterns of behavior that many of us living in more rural areas find undesirable, like voting left and committing crimes, two behaviors I don’t necessarily find mutually exclusive. These Democrat-led metropolitan cesspools serve as nothing more than real-life echo chambers and indoctrination hubs where the solution to everything seems to be higher taxes and less freedom. 

In contrast, look at rural areas where hunting and firearms are part of American culture and tradition. Deceptive studies will use mental gymnastics to have you believe these areas are more dangerous places to live, quoting per capita percentages, much like I have in this article, but leaving out information about geography and population density. When one incident occurs in a rural area, it throws the percentage a long way, but I promise you would rather stroll down Main Street in the middle of the night versus anywhere in the broad daylight of Detroit. 

You’ll find a broader knowledge of firearms and safe handling in rural America that is engrained from early childhood, with children spending more time outdoors, including regular participation in activities like hunting and fishing. We also tend to have much smaller law enforcement agencies and understand that those in the country may have to wait a minute for an officer in case of an emergency. While that last point may also be true in cities due to traffic and overwhelmed police and sheriff departments, we’ve long since taught our children how and when to handle a firearm, preparing and educating them rather than shielding and scaring them. I am also an advocate for incentivizing smart choices rather than punishing poor ones after the fact, and I support initiatives like tax-free firearm storage solutions and would even go so far as to encourage subsidization and tax credits for gun safes and other safety-related equipment and training. 

The point is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the country outside of educating our children and our communities. If consequences kept criminals from acting out criminally or irresponsible people from acting irresponsibly, society would be in a much better place than it is today. While I think consequences can help separate those who would harm our communities, time has proven that they are not a universally successful measure. 

It is just as neglectful to leave a minor who is trained and capable without means of protection as it is to leave one who doesn’t have the same education with easy access, as has been seen in Kentucky, Florida, Montana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, and countless more. These children and the people they stepped up to defend deserve to live as much as anyone else, so why does the response from the left always seem to ignore education, strip rights, and leave law-abiding citizens vulnerable? Occam’s razor, a principle that states the simplest explanation is usually the best, would say that’s exactly where they want you.