Shocker: Pretty Much
Everything Obama Said About Gun Violence Was Wrong
Matt Vespa | Oct 02, 2015
The president’s emotional plea for us to politicize mass
shootings to curb Second Amendment rights was explicitly clear
Thursday night. The president cited what he considers to be the facts that
support his narrative on the issue of gun violence in America. Namely, that the
American people, including gun owners, want stricter gun laws, that it’s easy
to obtain firearms, and that the UK and Australia have passed laws that reduced
mass shootings.
Let’s start with the polling.
First, the support for gun control has waned since Newtown,
with support dropping below 50 percent.
Second, 60 percent feel that guns in the home make them safer.
Third, the majority of American feel more guns reduce crime.
Fourth, as a result, it’s no surprise that 68 percent of
Americans feel safer in neighborhoods that are packing heat. Fifth, support for
gun rights is at a 25-year high.
As for the ability for one to buy a firearm, it’s true that
for years Americans thought it was too easy to buy guns. That’s not the case
anymore; 49 percent think
it’s just about right, while 41 percent think it’s too easy.
Regarding the UK and Australia, they’re
our allies–yes. But that doesn’t mean they’re good at gun policy, nor does it
mean we should follow their lead with policies that amount to gun
confiscation--something that will be incredibly hard to pull off, and most
likely unconstitutional, given that the U.S. has 300-350 million guns housed in
over 100 million homes. So, sorry, Mr. President, but we’re not like them.
We have a Bill of Rights that prevent us from enacting similar policies over
here–for which I am eternally grateful.
As I wrote earlier today, the National Review’s
Charles Cooke described this un-serious attitude liberals and anti-gun
advocates have regarding solutions to
these awful incidents, as if whoever shows they’re the most passionate about
stopping mass shootings gets the big, stuffed panda bear in the end. Cooke
stressed that this isn’t a competition for who is the most “vexed.” It’s a
public policy debate, and the pro-gun control side has nothing to offer that
could stop mass shootings. Again, there is a debate on how to prevent the
mentally ill from obtaining firearms. The president is right that America isn’t
the only nation dealing with how to treat and detect mental illness, but the
vast majority of the perpetrators of mass shootings have exhibited serious
signs of mental instability.
Adam Lanza, Elliot Rodger, Aaron Alexis, Jared Lee Loughner,
and John Russel Houser
all committed mass shootings–and all were mentally ill. In some cases, like
Alexis, if he had been properly reported, his security clearance would have
been revoked and the Navy Yard shooting would have never occurred. It’s a
tedious debate that touches upon the right to privacy, federalism, constitutional
rights, doctor-patient confidentiality, and to add more to the pile–a
comprehensive rundown of mental illnesses that should prohibit one who is
afflicted with mental problems from owning firearms. It quite the Gordian knot
regarding policy, but even Alexander the Great was able to untie it. We can do
so here. The majority of states voluntarily submit mental health records into
the federal National Instant Background Check System [NICS]. How can we improve
this, given that it’s not going to be shocking if we find out that the Oregon
shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, was mentally disturbed? Both sides agree on this
issue, yet it’s the gun control side that wants to shove this on the periphery
so we could either tip-toe around what they really want–gun confiscation–or
have another painfully ineffective talking point shouting match over background
checks.
Yes, the public is for background checks. I’m for background
checks. Almost every law-abiding gun owner supports background checks, but
expanding them in the way prescribed by the anti-gun left is neither effective
nor smart policy unless it includes something to deal with the mentally ill,
and that is going to take some time to debate. At the same time, we know that
gun control advocates cling onto this talking point for dear life because it’s
the only part of their agenda that polls well. On the
other hand, 64 percent do
support a gun registry, which is depressing, though gun owners generally oppose
this–and they’re the side that’s going to show up at the polls when decision
time comes.
Yet, let’s entertain the gun control side’s arguments again,
looking to Cato’s Trevor Burrus, who points out how much of the
anti-gun left’s agenda is simply unworkable and
possibly illegal [emphasis mine]:
Perhaps you think all guns should be confiscated. Okay, tell
us how you will do that without stormtroopers roaming the country
systematically violating our Fourth Amendment rights in a way that makes Donald
Trump’s call for the mass deportation of illegal immigrants look like taking a
census.
Or perhaps President Obama’s moral exhortations will work
wonders on the American psyche and over the next two months an astounding 90
percent of American firearms are turned over to the government. That still
leaves 30 million guns in private hands, and you can imagine how law-abiding
those who didn’t turn in their weapons are.
Perhaps you think that all guns should be registered and
licensed. Again, explain how you will do that without a battalion of
stormtroopers kicking down doors. Sure, some people will voluntarily register
their guns, but they are unlikely to be criminals or would-be mass shooters.
Canada tried to register guns and eventually gave up. New York’s attempt to register
“assault weapons” has been a glorious failure.
Mass shootings should not be the centerpiece of gun-control
policy. Mass shooters are motivated, difficult to detect, and commit only a
tiny fraction of gun violence in America. Pretending that stopping these
psychopaths is a matter of passing “commonsense” laws is just moral
grandstanding for cheap political points.
The hard truth is that we have, just as we accept that
deaths by automobile accidents, drowning in swimming pools, and industrial accidents
are inevitable. This doesn’t mean that there is nothing we can or should do,
but the first thing that we must do is to stop pretending that ending mass
shootings is merely a matter of “common sense.”
Furthermore, the notion that we’re living in the midst of
some gun violence epidemic is absurd. The FBI reported that gun deaths have
dropped again this year in every category, though rifles and shotguns have
always represented a small proportion of gun-related felonies/homicides, even
before the awful 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (via Free Beacon):
The FBI Crime in the United States
report found 8,124 murders committed with firearms in 2014, down
from 8,454 in 2013. That represents a 3.9 percent drop year over year and the
lowest rate of any year included in the report.
The report found that, as in previous years, the vast majority
of gun murders were committed with handguns, but all categories of gun murders
declined.
Rifles were involved in 248 murders last year, fewer than
the number committed with knives, blunt objects, and fists or feet. Three
percent of gun murders involved rifles.
The overall murder rate declined by 1.2 percent year over
year.
All Thursday night’s remarks showed is that the president is
angry, and gave a knee-jerk reaction that could potentially embarrass his
administration. As Charles Krauthammer said, “He has no
idea what the gun is, how it was obtained, who the person is, and what the
person’s motive is.” “What does he do if it turns out he was a terrorist?”
We’ll know more in the coming days on Mercer.
As for the call to Americans who change the politics in
Washington on this issue, the president noted in Friday’s press conference that
the NRA has the advantage; they’re good at what they do (defending our Second
Amendment freedoms). The president doesn’t have the votes in Congress because
Republicans are in control. They may have some explaining to do on some
issues, but when it comes to passing new gun control legislation, they’re firm
in their opposition. At the state-level, Republicans control the most state
legislatures since 1920. Nothing is moving on that front, and Democrats have
little in the talent pool to fight at the local level for new gun laws. It
feels like we’re undefeated on the legal front as well, with case after
case ending in pro-Second Amendment
victories.
The president says he can’t affect change on this issue
alone, but maybe he can–with the sober realization that this argument is over.
And the folks who fought for their Second Amendment rights to be respected and
expanded have won (for now*).
Last note: The president and anti-gunners know that
women are the fastest growing
demographic of new gun owners in the country, right? And
that women applying for
their concealed carry permits
has surged 270 percent. You're
going to try and tell them their Second Amendment rights, and their right to
self-defense, are being curtailed ... good luck with that political campaign.
It sure defies
stereotypes, huh?
*Public opinion can change, and it’s possible it could
happen here. But for now–I’m enjoying the victory lap.
No comments:
Post a Comment