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.
Inconvenient Truths for Gun-Grabbers
Making all the usual stipulations about early information — and for the regrettable necessity of making policy arguments while bodies are still warm (thanks, Obama) — consider that all four of the firearms used in yesterday’s massacre were purchased legally, at least two of them by murderer Syed Farook. As a California resident of some years, that means any weapons owned by him would have been subject to some of the most restrictive and cumbersome regulations in the country. Fat lot of good they did, too.
It’s hardly surprising that background checks and better weapons’ records to do little to stop spree killers: such people are generally not habitual lawbreakers and any system with a reasonable chance of identifying the mentally unbalanced is guaranteed to be both intrusive and deny many harmless people the exercise of their rights. (That these laws may play a more constructive role in stopping and investigating homicides between criminals strikes me as far more likely, but those generally aren’t the cases we’re talking about when we’re having a “national debate on gun violence.”)
Short of repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands — a policy that, besides abridging the rights of Americans, would guarantee an increase in violence — there is very little we can do to stop spree-killings from happening. And among the things that might help around he margins, refusing to publish killers’ manifestos, highlighting heroism when it occurs, reforming our mental health systems, and expanding the places where law-abiding citizens can legally carry are far more likely to make a difference than new restrictions on purchasing and carrying firearms.
As it is, the two worst massacres in recent years (this and Sandy Hook) both featured weapons purchased legally in heavily regulated states, and took place in government buildings that typically forbid citizens’ right to carry. Next time your Leftist friends suggest more gun regulations, ask them to think on that.
Update: After publishing, I spent an untoward amount of time trying determine definitively whether the Inland Regional Center was, indeed, a gun-free zone. While the Internet was able to confirm that firearms are prohibited in all public buildings in California, I could not find whether the IRC counted as such, as it is run as a (state-funded) private corporation. After being put in touch with him via email, California Department of General Services Deputy Direct Brian Ferguson confirmed to me today that “yes, [the IRC] would be covered under the law since state employees (social workers, public health officials, administrative laws judges, etc) conduct business there” and thus be a gun-free zone.
Published in Guns
When Jihadis attempted to go on a shooting spree earlier this year in gun-friendly Texas (at Garland in May), the shooters were stopped before they killed anyone.
Obviously gun control kills and needs to be abolished*
* Yes, I know that is hyperbolic. But it is the same type of hyperbole gun grabbers use.
Seawriter
Reason has no place in the minds of fanatic gun grabbers. This is their religion, zealously adhered to. The MSM does not point out that in France – how many times now?- where few guns are in the hands of the public, mass killers have had no problem obtaining fully automatic weapons, i.e. real assault weapons. So much for the efficacy of making every last one of us defenseless victims. I keep forgetting that becoming a victim is now the highest form of social virtue.
Let’s assume for a moment that you are AbdulNot Bin DoinNuttinWrong, and you’re looking to inflict Sudden Jihadi Syndrome somewhere inside the United States.
You have a choice where you should do this: You can attack in a state with no concealed carry provisions, a state with concealed carry by itself, or a state with concealed carry AND open carry.
If 10% or more of your potential victims have the means to send you to your 72 virgins ahead of schedule, and worse yet, if 1% of those people are openly displaying that they are ready, willing and able to send you to Paradise before you strike, wouldn’t you decide to move your attack to safer climes?
And that’s why the South is awesome.
We already know due to the recent NY experience that more rigorous gun control laws breed only mass non compliance from citizenry and law enforcement, which fundamental delegitimatizes the state.
Passing illegitimate dumb[redacted] laws only breeds contempt for the rule of law and its institutions.
This is something which has no good end, because frankly the laws are broadly unenforcable. There is ultimately no way to enforce this law over widespread opposition:
Nor can the federal government impose the laws via threat of arms because frankly it can’t fight 50 Iraqis with less than 30% of their existing forces.
The left is going to have to let this one go, for bare metal legitimacy of the state reasons, even if it thinks it can cobble together a slim majority of representatives dumb enough to pass it.
Even if people agree broadly with the idea, there is not enough trust of the democrats on this issue for it to go anywhere.
Decades of bad faith are coming home to roost and it is deeply unfortunate.
These two killers were a bit too well prepared to be considered anything but committed to achieving a specific planned objective. It is a little too simplistic in light of the events of Paris and the promise by ISIS that the United States was next to pretend that there isn’t good deal of reason to consider the strong possibility that the two were, if not directly linked to ISIS, at least inspired by their rhetoric. That Obama and the left are attempting to put this in the same category of violence as, say, the Sandy Hook shooting spree, demonstrates how completely unsafe our country has become.
I find it particularly interesting that Farook’s weapons have not been described other than to mention that they were AR-15s and purchased legally. My understanding is that California has some pretty strict regulations on the furniture that can be used on ARs. I am really curious as to whether the banned items were present on those guns or whether the two killers were able to accomplish their mission without the use of cosmetic items which attempt to make, essentially sporting weapons, look like military assault weapons.
Which is why you will see attempts to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate hundreds of millions of privately-owned guns.
Because that’s the only way to achieve the goals of the left.
The President pretty said as much when he admitted that current gun control laws wouldn’t have stopped this. That wasn’t his admission that gun control laws are pointless. That was his expression of a desire to confiscate.
Yep. That, too.
Yep, and the fact that, as Tom said, this shooting was done with legally purchased guns in a state with strict gun laws will only make the left call for a complete ban/abolishment of the 2nd amendment, and even stricter gun laws.
And Northern New England. For instance, the Maine constitution states that:
Tom,
This is a most egregious politicization by the President. The strong arguments the you make are not exactly unknown. With no respect for the victims or the facts, the President immediately pressed ahead and used the incident for his political agenda.
This is disgusting and the brainless media still shill for the malicious parasite who for the moment is the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. How many black lives have been lost in Chicago by black gang violence with illegal guns? Does the President even care?
We know he doesn’t comment.
Regards,
Jim
The shooter listed himself as a “health, safety and environmental inspector”.
CA has had all sorts of gun bans since the shooter was a tyke.
In many jurisdictions, titles like “health, safety and environmental inspector” often are accompanied by badges and guns and exemptions from gun laws. In CT for example, law enforcement officers are exempt from magazine bans even for personal weapons. Apparently the same goes for CA:
Did he use his badge to get his guns and mags where other Californians could not?
This stuff doesn’t happen in Montgomery Alabama, or Jackson Mississippi. Abdul ain’t gonna like it if he brings that fight to Bubba. They always pick victim-friendly zones.
They tried it in Texas, and it did not go well for them…
Let me play devil’s advocate here.
I see this point made frequently when a mass shooting occurs: the guns were purchased legally, so new gun control is not going to help. But the goal of gun control proponents is to change the law so such purchases would be illegal. The fact that a gun was purchased legally and then used to commit crime would be used by gun control proponents to argue that the law was too lenient, wouldn’t it?
What am I misunderstanding?
If the government were to suddenly go after guns owned by private citizens, people would quickly resort to purchasing guns from the black market (or perhaps the government itself, as we saw in Fast and Furious), and soon the government wouldn’t know who had guns and who didn’t. The government would not be able to disarm the American people any more than it can get illicit drugs off Main Street.
A fair challenge. Three answers:
Yes, agreed on all three points. However, people who want more gun control aren’t going to let the details of mere implementation stop them from having a strong political opinion about it and voting accordingly. It’s an appealing position to take during a moral panic. Telling them the guns were purchased legally means we really need to do something! Same sentiment as “there oughta be a law.”
Legal sophistry being what it is, this presents no obstacle. The right will not be questioned. It will merely be excised. Note that it is almost exclusively ivy-league trained lawyers who cannot understand that the Second Amendment’s text recites a right of individuals and does not confer a power upon the government.
I guess we’re just on the wrong side of history…
So 13 dead soldiers and the shooter is still living is not going well? I consider that a successful terrorist attack.
They played Cowboys & Muslims, and lost.
Fort Hood is a Federal reservation. Texas laws are secondary to base regulations. Unless Texas secedes and annexes it. The Federal government also denies it was a terrorist attack, and claims it was workplace violence. Under those conditions I am not sure you can rightly claim it took place in Texas in much the same way the Russian Embassy in Washington D.C. is not in the United States, but is part of Russia.
When Jihadists attacked in Garland – fully under control of the sovereign state of Texas – the outcome was a wee bit different. Dead tangos, no dead innocents. Not saying that will happen every time, but it will happen more often than not.
Seawriter
One just gets worn out making these points over and over again. Mark Steyn said he’s all ‘Islamed out’; well, I’m all gun controlled out. The two sides are talking past each other.
My fear is that Obama’s rhetoric in particular with regards to race, guns, and Republicans is fomenting a dangerous situation in the United States. People are so angry about the way he speaks to Americans that they are supporting the only guy that will punch back, who happens to be Trump. Bad vibes in the USA.
Laugh-out-loud funny. :) :) :)
I found it interesting that in a NYT account they mentioned the manufacture of each of the guns. They described the handguns as simply “handguns”, with no mention of model or caliber, but the did tell us who made them.
I wonder if this is an indication that the Left will be trying to paint guns makers as the bad guys?
Also, on the local NY news last night I heard Senator Chuck Schumer say that he had been briefed and that the gunmen used AK-47’s. Now I do not expect him to be an expert on rifles, but he wants to be the one who can tell us what guns we should and should not be allowed to purchase.
Worst case scenario: President Cankles nominates a Sotomayer type disaster to replace any of Messrs. Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas. Then in a 5-4 decision, the court rules that “clearly, the second amendment applies to militias only” and purchases of new guns are outlawed – existing guns are grandfathered. Tyranny ensues.
Best case scenario: it takes longer for the worst case to play out.
Federal establishments in the South are occupied territory, where our laws, rules, customs, and morals don’t apply. The embassy comparison is an inspired one, and I’m going to use it in the future. Down here, federal places… military bases, federal buildings, etc…. are functionally foreign soil. The Islamist that shot up the office in Tennessee chose a military building, where even Marines were forbidden from being armed. He likely would have had a different time of it among common Tennesseans.
Reason or logic do not motivate these appeals, it’s more like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h4DZeBleLs
Oh they’ve already been doing that. There’s a bill being crafted for Congress that would hold gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with them. Clearly unconstitutional, but is shows where the mindset of the left is.