There has been another mass casualty event, ten more lives lost, including an officer with Boulder Police Department. Regardless of political persuasion—which shouldn’t be taken into account after an event like this—we all grieve for the senseless loss of life.
These mass killings are heinous—we all agree on that. We can all agree that the loss of ten precious people was horrible, and we can also disagree on solutions that might prevent something like this from happening again.
But the establishment media, and those who push anti-gun policies, desire to politicize these tragedies before details are available to study. First, they focused obsessively on the killer’s race before it was known. They said initially that the killer—whom we will not name—must be an angry white guy, when he was in fact a Syrian refugee.
Then they focused on gun control. While bodies were still on the ground, while next-of-kin were being notified, while America should have been grieving the loss, those who want to push gun control didn’t let this crisis go to waste. They did what they always do. They pushed gun control.
Here is the key question: Do the gun controllers want to reduce deaths by murderers who use firearms, or do they just want fewer guns to exist at all? It’s a legitimate question.
Arguments from gun controllers might sound good on the surface to people not familiar with the actual workings of gun policy. But they are largely in fact not workable, or simply based on untrue assertions.
President Biden has already pushed to “tighten” gun laws. At a federal level, members of Congress are talking about Federal universal background checks. But Colorado already has universal background checks on all gun sales, even those between private parties. So why are they trying to pass a bill to do nationally what didn’t work locally?
Senator Dianne Feinstein has offered a so-called Assault Weapons Ban, which would ban firearms based on what they look like, or a particular feature they have.
Boulder already has had a ban on so-called assault weapons since 2018. But the intent of the law isn’t equal to results. Oddly, a criminal who wants to kill as many people as he can isn’t likely to be deterred by laws against his weapon of choice. As it turns out, murder is already illegal, and murder being illegal doesn’t keep killers from killing. Gun control organizations would have people believe that one more law against violence will stop it. It is simply not true.
And the evidence is clear that the Clinton-era Assault Weapons ban didn’t reduce gun violence. In fact, analysis from both sides of this policy argument have come to that same conclusion. So why push policies that have never worked to reduce crime?
Mostly ignored by the establishment media are the facts that the Boulder killer was known to the FBI, and family and friends reported mental illness concerns. Certainly, COVID lockdowns have led to an increase in untreated mental illnesses, which may be hidden due to less contact with others. But the question remains: why is there no Congressional focus on untreated mental illness, or on how someone “known to” the FBI passed a background check? We know that similar circumstances played out with the Parkland and Ft. Hood killers. Senators Cruz and Grassley tried to address those concerns, but their bill was killed despite having 9 Democrat votes.
Congress isn’t focusing on the FBI and mental health aspects because of the question above: Do the gun controllers want to reduce deaths by murderers who use firearms, or do they just want fewer guns to exist at all?
If they just want fewer guns, they would focus on gun control. If they wanted to reduce murders by firearm, they would focus on mental health, breakdowns in the background check system, and anything else that may have stopped that killer, without placing restrictions on all law-abiding gun owners who did nothing wrong. We can do things to prevent violent crime, without harming those who want to defend themselves and their families— against precisely this sort of crime. It’s not either-or.
Meanwhile, the gun-control lobby is in it for the long haul. They claim that Congress is failing to act on what they think is obvious: Gun control. But the people whom Congress members represent know that gun control isn’t stopping criminals. And as gun ownership continues to rise, those gun owners know that gun control isn’t going to stop criminals. They know that the law-abiding, like them and their neighbors, are the ones who suffer under those laws.
Ordinary Americans, who are represented by members of Congress, should let them know—firmly and politely—that their gun-control proposals have never worked, and are not going to do anything to reduce death by violent methods. Demand they focus on what could prevent the next mass killing event.