Ban ‘feel-good’ laws in gun debate
In the wake of two more mass killings, the debate has once again turned to guns. Good, because honest debate is needed to cut through the white noise and ascertain the truth about guns, and, more important, why massacres keep occurring.
If both sides shoot straight with the facts and aim for the moral high ground by respecting each other’s views, progress can be made. But if the target remains whom we can most demonize, nothing will be accomplished.
At the outset, let’s get one thing straight: Wanting gun manufacturers to bear responsibility for shootings is the same as holding beer companies responsible for drunk drivers killing people. It’s insane, and goes against every tenet of American justice.
Now on to the Consider:
1) Excepting wars, the two greatest massacres on American soil did not involve a single gun. The 9/11 attacks killed 2,996 while wounding 6,000. And Timothy McVeigh, the all-American boy-next-door, killed 168 and injured 680 when he blew up the Oklahoma City federal building.
The left must understand that when someone becomes so unstable that he wants to kill as many as possible, he’ll find a way to do just that - regardless of gun bans. Unhinged people planning crimes of that magnitude will simply not be deterred by laws regulating how many weapons can purchased in a month, what types of guns can be bought, and how much ammunition they hold. Criminals, by definition, don’t abide by the law.
Put another way, had there been a gun ban, the Georgia and Boulder murderers would not have shelved their plans in favor of resuming a “normal” life of cookouts and ball games. They had snapped, and no law was going to stop them from executing their plans. Undoubtedly, they
guns. would have found alternate ways to kill.
2) Mass shooters are as dangerous as suicide bombers and Kamikaze pilots, because it is virtually impossible to stop someone who has decided, one way or the other, that he will not live to see the next sunrise. The primary issues we should be focusing on are how to identify these people before they explode, and why people are engaging in this behavior when they weren’t doing so just a generation ago. But civil liberties and gun rights must not be sacrificed in that pursuit. Life will never be risk-free, but negatively impacting the rights of millions because an individual committed a random act makes zero sense.
3) Gun bans won’t work for a simple reason: math. Let’s assume that from this day forward, it would be illegal to manufacture any guns. That would leave at least 300 million in America, a stockpile from which a mass murderer could steal, buy on the black market, or purchase at gun shows. Fact is, the Sandy Hook school mass shooter murdered his own mother, and stole her guns before he entered the school to commit his heinous act. Even Connecticut’s stringent gun laws couldn’t prevent that massacre.
Keep in mind that when the Columbine school shooting occurred - the first “big one” - the Clinton-era assault weapon ban was in place, thereby proving that such bans are ineffective. (A ban, by the way, which was enacted not on the mechanics or firing rates of guns, but on how certain weapons “looked.” The result was banning weapons based on “bells and whistles” and their visual “fear factor,” even though more powerful, albeit plain-looking, guns remained on the market - pure political theatrics: passing legislation that “sounded good” but affected nothing.)
For those advocating confiscation, think again. Any attempt would be met with opposition so fierce that it would make the Civil War look civil. That’s not speculation, but fact. Not only is gun ownership a Second Amendment right, but Americans do not cede to authority as easily as they once did. In 1933, when the government confiscated gold, most Americans complied. That submission would never happen today. Just a few decades ago, few Catholics dared question the church about anything, yet today the opposite is true. And sexual harassment claims are being brought forward that just a few years ago would never have seen the light of day. Times have changed.
Bottom line: Guns are here to stay, lock, stock and barrel. Discussing confiscation is a waste of time - and dangerous.
4) Many common-sense regulations are already in effect, but we can do better, such as taking up Sen. Pat Toomey’s proposal to mandate instant background checks for gun show and internet purchases. Those opposing such measures hurt their cause in the eyes of the great American middle, who decide all elections.
5) It is not helpful when people make incorrect claims. One particularly disingenuous one making the rounds is how many Americans die every year from “gun violence,” with the implication that victims are gunned down after a violent confrontation.
Not true. First, of the almost 39,000 reported deaths-by-firearm in 2019, almost two-thirds were suicide - not homicide. Huge difference, so keeping statistics in the proper context is critical. Second, many states and cities with the most stringent gun control laws also have the highest shooting and murder rates, such as California, New York, Illinois (Chicago has the most murders of any city), Delaware (Wilmington), New Jersey (Camden, Newark), Washington, D.C., and Maryland (Baltimore). Go figure.
6) The 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech claimed 32 lives, which, up to that point, was the nation’s deadliest shooting. The victims were murdered by one student using just two handguns, yet the perception among many is that most mass shooters use socalled “assault rifles.” Truth is, most victims of mass shootings die from weapons not considered assault weapons (with handguns accounting for 78 percent) at the hands of individuals who legally bought guns after passing background checks.
And that’s the crux of the problem.
An assault weapon ban would serve only to make ourselves feel good because “we did something.” And since many gun-ban advocates admit that such restrictions won’t really affect anything, and people are still dying, what would be the point? Impossible as the shooter’s motivations are to comprehend, we cannot push for the wrong things in our quest to explain an unexplainable evil, especially because it won’t solve the problem.
Instead, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and do the heavy lifting, starting with a hard look in the mirror to figure out what changed so radically from just a few short decades ago when mass shooting were virtually nonexistent.
We need to put partisanship aside, work together, and move quickly. If we don’t, the next tragedy will be upon us faster than a speeding bullet.