Monday, December 17, 2012

Predictable, Expected, and Wrong

There is very little that can be added to the thoughts of grief and sadness and outrage over the atrocity committed in Newtown, CT last week. It is a thoroughly stomach churning, senseless almost too heinous to believe crime committed by an individual who can only be described as evil. When such acts are committed we, as human beings, try to rationalize them and try to make it feel like we are doing something to prevent "the next one." 


Which brings me to the topic of guns.

The souls of the dead had barely ascended into heaven when the left-wing took to the airwaves and to their computers blaming this atrocity on gun owners and the "gun culture." Clearly, they said, if we only had more restrictive gun laws, this atrocity could have been prevented. Clearly, we must move forward to ban "assault rifles", and clearly nobody needs the type of weaponry that the killer used: just ask the Baltimore Sun, right? And besides, "if it saves just one child...."

Again, the idea of wanting to take swift and demonstrable action in the wake of a tragedy gives people a sense of empowerment, a sense that they are doing something that makes sense when nothing around them does. But of course doing something and doing it fast doesn't mean that the best course of action is going to be taken. Remember, in the post 9/11 environment when we had to do something in order to fight terrorism we were saddled with the Patriot Act, TSA, and the Department of Homeland Security, none of which have been effective solutions to fight the problem. 

So the idea that the idea of stricter gun control is something that would have broad based appeal in the wake of this tragedy. And while gun control leaders, many of whom are hiding behind their private security, police protection, or in the case of Dianne Feinstein her concealed carry permit, are quick to call for additional curbs on guns in order to stop the "next one", there are a few key points that they tend to forget:
And that says nothing about one basic premise of gun laws: the idea that criminals, those that are most prone to commit such heinous atrocities, are going to be stopped a by a law. The killer in this instance broke any number of gun laws before committing his crime; other than disarming law-abiding civilians, what practical impact will additional gun control measures have? None.

I tend to agree with Kurt Schlichter's assessment that we should have a conversation on guns, though not necessarily the one that gun control enthusiasts would like us to have. 

Again, I am sympathetic to the idea that people want to "do something." I get that. But we need to actually address problems which are relevant to the discussion. And we cannot allow the liberty of law-abiding gun owners to be abridged based on the horrific actions of one madman.

3 comments:

FightinBluHen51 said...

I wish I could find it (but it came from the FBI crime report) that you are 8.5 times more likely in the state of Maryland to be beaten to death than to be murdered by a rifle.

Less than 3% of all murders in the same year (2011) were committed with a rifle.

Go figure.

amr said...

Some anti-gun people have said that the Founders didn't envision weapons such as the AR-15, so they don't fall under the 2nd Amendment and can be banned. Beyond the idea put forth by the Founders that civilians have the right to bear arms, the word arms indicating military type weapons, I don't think the Founders envisioned TV, cable and MSNBC either. Thus using the anti-gun logic, the freedom of the press only applies to print journalism as in the 1st Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of the only press known at the time, print journalism; so telecommunications and TV journalism is not covered. But strangely the courts refuse to follow that logic. So one can assume that restrictions on the present firearms permitted to be owned by citizens cannot be implemented and if they are, then the law needs to be challenged since any law passed is de facto constitutional and can be implemented by the government; such as confiscation of firearms.

Keep this in mind that American gun owners may have good reason to be skeptical of common assurances that registration records won’t ever be used for anything more than tracking lost and stolen weapons. In New York City, the center of agitation for tighter U.S. gun laws, the registration system for long guns such as rifles and shotguns, established in 1967, was used in the 1990s to confiscate previously lawful semiautomatic rifles.

amr said...

Some anti-gun people have said that the Founders didn't envision weapons such as the AR-15, so they don't fall under the 2nd Amendment and can be banned. Beyond the idea put forth by the Founders that civilians have the right to bear arms, the word arms indicating military type weapons, I don't think the Founders envisioned TV, cable and MSNBC either. Thus using the anti-gun logic, the freedom of the press only applies to print journalism as in the 1st Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of the only press known at the time, print journalism; so telecommunications and TV journalism is not covered. But strangely the courts refuse to follow that logic. So one can assume that restrictions on the present firearms permitted to be owned by citizens cannot be implemented and if they are, then the law needs to be challenged since any law passed is de facto constitutional and can be implemented by the government; such as confiscation of firearms.

Keep this in mind that American gun owners may have good reason to be skeptical of common assurances that registration records won’t ever be used for anything more than tracking lost and stolen weapons. In New York City, the center of agitation for tighter U.S. gun laws, the registration system for long guns such as rifles and shotguns, established in 1967, was used in the 1990s to confiscate previously lawful semiautomatic rifles.

ShareThis