We're back in the twilight zone again in the gun control debate. A crazed shooter who had failed a background check for buying weapons started shooting people in Odessa, Texas the other day. As soon as it happened, the usual drumbeat started. This is all President Trump's fault, we were told by the media. Then it turned out that the shooter was actually a left wing Democrat with a Beto O'Rourke bumber sticker on his truck. That story line immediately disappeared. Instead we got the one in which Republicans are trying to hide behind the Second Amendment to block any "common sense gun safety measures." That's the current line on MSNBC and CNN. But here's the problem: as usual, we never get told just what constitutes "common sense gun safety measures."
Think about it.
Universal background checks is a biggie insofar as gun control talking points go. It has a major problem, however. Almost all gun purchases in the USA are already subject to background checks. The Las Vegas shooter who killed over 50 got all his weapons legally and passed background checks. The same was true of many of the other recent shooters. Then there's the people like the Odessa shooter who failed background checks but still got the weapons he needed for his attacks. The truth is that of the last 10 mass shootings, not a single one would have been stopped if we had universal background checks. Indeed, other than creating paperwork, bureaucracy and red tape, there's nothing to indicate that background checks actually work.
Another big point from the gun control lobby is that we need to ban assault weapons. That too has a problem In the 1990's we had an assault weapons ban. There was no appreciable drop in shootings when it was in place. In fact, that was the main reason why the ban was allowed to expire without being renewed. It didn't work. Over 95% of all gun shot wounds come from hand guns, not rifles or shotguns. Assault weapons sound bad, but they are rarely used in crimes.
But what about banning extra large magazines. If the shooter has to stop to reload more often, we will see fewer shots fired and more chances for escape or to take out the shooter. That may sound good, but it just doesn't take very long to change magazines. A shooter could get 10 magazines that hold ten bullets each or five that hold 20 and there's not an appreciable difference in how long it would take to get off 100 rounds.
There are silly proposals like Old Joe Biden's today in which he called for banning all magazines that hold one or more bullets. That's basically every gun out there. I doubt Old Joe even understands that. This is a guy who says he was a "hunter". Either his mind is going (very possible) or the only thing he ever hunted for was a good bargain at the local liquor store.
So here's the problem. Each of the usual proposals is fatally flawed. None of them would work to reduce gun deaths. As a result, the gun control lobby just stopped mentioning specific proposals and they talk about common sense gun safety laws.
If there are actually proposals short of gun confiscation that could reduce gun fatalities, I'm sure that a majority of Americans would support them. On the other hand, if the gun control issue is one that is just used by the Democrats to try to bludgeon their opponents while not helping solve the problem, then it's time for them to just shut up about it.
Think about it.
Universal background checks is a biggie insofar as gun control talking points go. It has a major problem, however. Almost all gun purchases in the USA are already subject to background checks. The Las Vegas shooter who killed over 50 got all his weapons legally and passed background checks. The same was true of many of the other recent shooters. Then there's the people like the Odessa shooter who failed background checks but still got the weapons he needed for his attacks. The truth is that of the last 10 mass shootings, not a single one would have been stopped if we had universal background checks. Indeed, other than creating paperwork, bureaucracy and red tape, there's nothing to indicate that background checks actually work.
Another big point from the gun control lobby is that we need to ban assault weapons. That too has a problem In the 1990's we had an assault weapons ban. There was no appreciable drop in shootings when it was in place. In fact, that was the main reason why the ban was allowed to expire without being renewed. It didn't work. Over 95% of all gun shot wounds come from hand guns, not rifles or shotguns. Assault weapons sound bad, but they are rarely used in crimes.
But what about banning extra large magazines. If the shooter has to stop to reload more often, we will see fewer shots fired and more chances for escape or to take out the shooter. That may sound good, but it just doesn't take very long to change magazines. A shooter could get 10 magazines that hold ten bullets each or five that hold 20 and there's not an appreciable difference in how long it would take to get off 100 rounds.
There are silly proposals like Old Joe Biden's today in which he called for banning all magazines that hold one or more bullets. That's basically every gun out there. I doubt Old Joe even understands that. This is a guy who says he was a "hunter". Either his mind is going (very possible) or the only thing he ever hunted for was a good bargain at the local liquor store.
So here's the problem. Each of the usual proposals is fatally flawed. None of them would work to reduce gun deaths. As a result, the gun control lobby just stopped mentioning specific proposals and they talk about common sense gun safety laws.
If there are actually proposals short of gun confiscation that could reduce gun fatalities, I'm sure that a majority of Americans would support them. On the other hand, if the gun control issue is one that is just used by the Democrats to try to bludgeon their opponents while not helping solve the problem, then it's time for them to just shut up about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment