We've seen two big mass shootings in the last months. One in Las Vegas remains something of a mystery. We still don't really have a good idea why the shooter decided to kill innocent people in a crowd. We do know, however, that the shooter acquired all his weapons legally; he passed background checks, met waiting periods and never was questioned about his purchases. The second mass shooting was in a rural Texas church. Here too, there remain many questions about why this happened. Nevertheless, we know that the shooter got his guns legally as well. He should have been denied the guns due to his general court martial in the military and his conviction for family abuse, but during the Obama years, these things somehow never made it into the federal data base used for approving gun purchases.
So what does this tell us? If you're a Democrat in Congress, you will announce repeatedly that these mass shootings require "common sense gun control legislation". They want to close the supposed "gun show loophole" and some other things like that. On the other hand, if you are a realist, you understand that none of the items being pushed by the Democrats would have changed anything in either case. The Vegas shooter would have passed any test to buy his weapons. The Texas shooter would have been denied the guns he used if the Obama administration had bothered properly to enforce the laws already on the books. In other words, all the talk about "common sense gun control legislation" is nothing but a smoke screen that would not have stopped anything here.
Let me be clear. I am not supporting or opposing any proposed gun control legislation. I am, instead, just pointing out the idiotic nature of the non-stop ranting about the need for such legislation after each shooting. As a nation we have to look for ways to stop these shootings that will actually work. It will do no good to pass some law that will not change anything.
A good example is a law regarding bump stocks. These are devices that convert a semi-automatic weapon so that it fires like an automatic one. Manufacture of automatic weapons for sale to the public was banned decades ago. In 2011, however, the Obama administration ruled that bump stocks could be made and sold even though it seemed to be nothing more than a way to get around the law banning automatic weapons. The Vegas shooter used bump stocks on some of his weapons (legally, of course). There has been some bi-partisan efforts to ban manufacture and sale of bump stocks, and this may pass. But would this law actually stop mass shootings? The simple answer is NO. the Vegas shooter could have fired bursts from his semi-automatic weapons with little difference in the outcome.
Better enforcement of the laws on the books would make a difference, however. Had the Obama administration properly reported the data on the Texas shooter, he would never have been able to buy any weapon legally. Of course, he might have chosen to buy illegal weapons, but no law would stop that.
The real truth is that the debate over gun legislation is just political theater. It's one of those fights that stir passions but make no difference. It's time to move on to focus on things that might actually work.
So what does this tell us? If you're a Democrat in Congress, you will announce repeatedly that these mass shootings require "common sense gun control legislation". They want to close the supposed "gun show loophole" and some other things like that. On the other hand, if you are a realist, you understand that none of the items being pushed by the Democrats would have changed anything in either case. The Vegas shooter would have passed any test to buy his weapons. The Texas shooter would have been denied the guns he used if the Obama administration had bothered properly to enforce the laws already on the books. In other words, all the talk about "common sense gun control legislation" is nothing but a smoke screen that would not have stopped anything here.
Let me be clear. I am not supporting or opposing any proposed gun control legislation. I am, instead, just pointing out the idiotic nature of the non-stop ranting about the need for such legislation after each shooting. As a nation we have to look for ways to stop these shootings that will actually work. It will do no good to pass some law that will not change anything.
A good example is a law regarding bump stocks. These are devices that convert a semi-automatic weapon so that it fires like an automatic one. Manufacture of automatic weapons for sale to the public was banned decades ago. In 2011, however, the Obama administration ruled that bump stocks could be made and sold even though it seemed to be nothing more than a way to get around the law banning automatic weapons. The Vegas shooter used bump stocks on some of his weapons (legally, of course). There has been some bi-partisan efforts to ban manufacture and sale of bump stocks, and this may pass. But would this law actually stop mass shootings? The simple answer is NO. the Vegas shooter could have fired bursts from his semi-automatic weapons with little difference in the outcome.
Better enforcement of the laws on the books would make a difference, however. Had the Obama administration properly reported the data on the Texas shooter, he would never have been able to buy any weapon legally. Of course, he might have chosen to buy illegal weapons, but no law would stop that.
The real truth is that the debate over gun legislation is just political theater. It's one of those fights that stir passions but make no difference. It's time to move on to focus on things that might actually work.
No comments:
Post a Comment