Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
QOTD: Doing Something Is Doing Nothing
Perhaps before Congress ‘does something,’ we ought to let states and localities experiment with giving community leaders the ability to act—while also protecting due process and other constitutional rights. At the least those who insist the solutions are primarily federal ought to answer the most obvious question: Can you show us exactly how your measure would have prevented earlier shootings if it had been in place?
Some will take this as a counsel of despair. That, too, is an unfortunate consequence of today’s narrative. Because acknowledging the limits of the federal government’s ability to stop mass shootings isn’t the end of the debate. It’s the start of an honest one.
– Bill McGurn, August 13, The Wall Street Journal
As usual, Bill McGurn’s question is wise and prescient. How many times have people said that something needs to be done, then implement a law (which takes resources of all kinds) and no one ever checks to see if the celebrated law has shown any results? In fact, the law often does more damage than good! Then too, have the results been the intended ones? Too often legislation is meaningless, is meant to be a salve to frightened and desperate people; new laws give legislators the right to say, well, we tried!
Instead, as McGurn says, why don’t we conduct an honest assessment of what happened and the reasons it happened and then patiently begin to look for solutions. And don’t assume that the first solution is the best one, either! Solutions must be tested against the original problem to see if they will make any difference.
And at times we may need to simply say: there’s nothing to be done.
We are fighting against the evil side of human nature.
Published in Guns
Why conduct an honest assessment of what happened and the reasons it happened when we could be doing something. Won’t look as good on the campaign literature. The solution didn’t solve the problem? Then it will be time to do something else!
The Federal government should be the last to change instead of the first. In 1965, President Johnson approved the Head Start program, which was to help low income preschool children succeed in school. It still continues today, even though multiple studies show it makes no difference.
The Quote of the Day series is the easiest way to start a fun conversation on Ricochet. There are 4 days open on the August Signup Sheet. We even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!
There’s more truth in that statement than you know. We call it “legislating by press release”. With the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and social media, the first person to the microphone (or keyboard) generally sets the four corners of the debate. After that, it’s nothing more than a “look at me!” mad rush to pile on, and the result is legislation that never takes into account its unintended consequences. It’s very rare that a bad bill can be talked back to a more reasonable position when there’s a headlong rush to respond to “do something” where calm reflection would show that human nature is not subject to change, as @susanquinn so aptly says at the end of her post. Campaign mail pieces are rife with chest thumping for having done something (if nothing more than signing onto a bill as co-sponsor to cover one’s political backside) or accusing an opponent for failing to do something because he or she didn’t sign onto the bill. It’s totally disingenuous, but it happens all the time.
I always relate it to the immigration issue:
Illegal immigration runs rampant. “We need comprehensive immigration reform!”
Pass new 2000-page law.
20-30 years go by with no enforcement of new (or old) laws.
Illegal immigration runs rampant.
“We need comprehensive immigration reform!”
What ever happened to empowering the states?? You are spot on, @vectorman!
They have been talking of reforming education since I was in school in the 70’s.
Thank you for filling in the picture so very well, @illiniguy! Tragic but true.
You are so right, @percival. So now go and do something!
Indeed. The broken record syndrome. Thanks, @oldphil.
The best reform would be to get rid of the Dept. of Education!
The “assault weapon” ban (way back in . . . 1994?) delivered what the liberals asked for – a law banning scary looking weapons with large magazines. What it didn’t deliver were the results it promised. I believe there was even a government-issued report stating such, but it wasn’t widely disseminated in the MSM . . .
Government seems to be a perverse form of musical chairs where you actually keep adding chairs as the music plays, but when it stops you take away all the chairs, not just one.
The reason new “common sense gun legislation” doesn’t do anything to stop crime is because its target is law abiding citizens. The first response of gun grabbers after a mass shooting is to disarm potential victims. Makes perfect (left wing) sense.
But, I’m sure if we keep telling young white men they’re toxic and racist and the greatest threat to America, that will solve the mass murder problem. /sarc off
“Do something” is the motto of our narcissistic era. The world, history, traditional beliefs and institutions are all flawed so one transcends them by endorsing a conveniently unattainable ideal and from that posture, criticize everyone and everything that dos not share your vision and purity.
The Paris climate accord, gun control, the Great Society… grand gestures that have no curative effect and probably carry major downsides still offer social and psychological benefits for those who crave to be part of the elite. If we Do Something we can pretend it is working and if we don’t Do Something we can blame the system, racism, Trump, the patriarchy or some other nominal villain the identification of which elevates the one who makes the accusation.
So the Progressives win either way, eh @oldbathos? Even though this belief is intellectually unsound and foolish, I still envy, just a little, the peace of mind it provides. Just a little . . .
“…we ought to let states and localities experiment with giving community leaders the ability to act…”
Here is where we have a disconnect. The intent of the constitution was to establish specific areas where the federal government can act, and where the states have the power. The 10th amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And unfortunately, this is largely ignored by the courts.
“Do Something” is the rally cry of those who promulgate Never let a Crisis go to Waste.
So true, @billnelson. The Founders never intended for the courts to have the power they have taken. But we have no one minding the “legislative store,” and here we are. I see no hope of that changing any time soon. Do you?
The goal is to target law abiding citizens because they are an easy target. The UK is full of rules going after citizens, while ignoring the real threats.
And they’ve done it too, haven’t they?
Well done!
The constitution limits the Federal government, it does not empower it except in national defense, trade and foreign policy. It specifically removes Federal power to control guns. The problem is the Federal government generally grows as it chooses but the second amendment doesn’t let it here. This should tell us something about how much the constitution has already been eroded. We should not give an inch on the issue. We can learn from state experiments, that’s the whole idea. Most of our states are larger than most countries. Chicago et al have gone far in controlling guns and shown that their approach doesn’t work. That they don’t learn tells me their objective is not what they pretend.
That always seems to be true, @iwalton. And they don’t care what outcomes they get; ultimately, their actions are about taking more power. Thanks.
And every time the government bans one type of weapon, the thugs find another. Coupled with jail time for those who defend themselves, England is no place I’d want to live, maybe not even visit . . .
The constitution identifies a supreme court (not called that) and other such courts as congress shall determine. Congress can fix this, but I do not expect such action.
I do find it interesting that the newer judges appointed by republicans have not been in lock step on the more conservative side. Scalia was also a judge of principle, and the “side” didn’t matter. When a judge is confirmed for a court position, there is an expectation that everyone knows how they will rule.
Now granted, if you have 2 lawyers on an issue you get 7 conflicting decisions, but there has to be a standard.
Essentially we are asking for people to do the job correctly. Seems hard, doesn’t it?
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” – Winston Churchill (he stole this from someone previously in Parliament).
Thank you!
John Yoo has said that if SCOTUS was made up of nine Richard Epsteins, all the decisions would be 5:4.
With nine separate opinions.