Like a foolish dog returning to eat its own sick, liberals can’t stay away from expressing their long pent-up desire to disarm law-abiding Americans. Their central governing principle is to give more money and power to the federal government (or the UN, when they can get away with it), and independent gun owners stand in their way. The Sandy Hook shooting victims weren’t even in the ground before Democratic lawmakers were calling on Obama to “exploit” (their words) the tragedy to push for more gun control.
Liberals seem to regard guns like Sauron’s One Ring: as an evil object of magical power that automatically warps and corrupts the user. Frequently, they also seem to see people disagreeing with them as a sign of mental illness. (Check Twitter for how many call 2nd Amendment activists “sick” or “insane.”) I suspect that makes it harder for them to recognize real mental illness. And when they say they want a “dialog” over guns, what they really mean is “Shut up and hand over your guns and I’ll temporarily stop calling you deranged, bloodthirsty killers.”
When the plan to deter gun use by the criminal and insane starts out “Step 1: Disarm the Sane and Law-Abiding,” I think I see a flaw in their brilliant scheme. It’s as if there were a rash of food poisonings from unlicensed food carts, and the liberal solution was to ban an all food carts.
Two years ago I said that when push comes to shove, there’s no such thing as a pro-gun Democrat, and this week West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin is the prime example, “A” rating from the NRA notwithstanding. Expect any pro-gun Democrats to either undergo a mysterious conversion to the gun-grabbing cause, or get pushed out of the party, just like nominally “pro-life Democrats” either caved (Bart Stupak and his bloc) or were pushed out (pretty much every national election over the last 20 years).
Other Sandy Hook shooting fallout:
David Kopel notes that “Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.” (Kopel is author of The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, which I recommend for anyone serious about looking at both sides of the debate over gun control.)
Remember that the problem of random mass murder is not a new one. “Mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and 30s as it has been since the mid-1960s.”
It’s hard to tell from the media reports, but the .223 Bushmaster reportedly used by shooter Adam Lanza does not appear to have any of the cosmetic features covered by the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban (i.e., any two of a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, barrel shroud or flash suppressor). Therefore it’s not an “assault weapon.” (The liberal definition of an “assault weapon” is “any gun that looks scary.”)
And the result of the Clinton “assault weapon” ban? As per Clayton E. Cramer, “he policy has been tried and found wanting.”
Every single recent mass killing save one has taken place in a “gun free” zone.
John Lott, author of the essential More Guns, Less Crime, says that we should arm teachers and ban “gun free zones.”
Notice how the repeated failure of gun control is always used as the justification for more gun control? Which is pretty much liberal policy on every issue (welfare spending, regulation, etc.) in a nutshell.
The record of gun control in reducing crime in other countries is also generally one of failure as well.
Here in Austin, the owner of Thai Noodle House (probably the worst Thai restaurant in town) declared that “I don’t care if a bunch of white kids got killed.” Strangely enough this did not win him many friends, and the restaurant is currently closed.
For still another view of the problem, read “I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother,” probably the most passed-around article in the blogsphere and Twitter this week.
Tags: Clayton E. Cramer, Crime, David Kopel, gun control, Guns, Joe Manchin, John Lott, West Virginia
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 18th, 2012 at 10:29 PM and is filed under Crime, Democrats, Guns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
[…] evidence that the end of the world is coming: Lawrence and I actually disagree on […]
…the .223 Bushmaster reportedly used by shooter … does not appear to have any of the cosmetic features covered by the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban…
That’s probably because CT continues to have ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ in place at to this day! Thus if the firearm was ‘legally’ in CT, it would have to conform to CT’s existing State AWB laws.
==> http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0362.htm
Also:
==> http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm
(Hope your ‘comments’ does HTML tags or this is going to be a mess?) — ;-)
.