As you no doubt know by now, yesterday a mass shooting occurred in San Bernadino, California, leaving dozens dead or wounded. My condolences and prayers go out to those injured in the attack and the families of those killed. May you find peace someday. And may the murderers who did this be swiftly caught and punished.
At this moment, we do not know for certain what happened or why, or who did it. Yes, details are beginning to emerge, such as the names of the alleged shooters, Syed Farook and Tafsheen Malik, as well as a supposed connection to radical Islam. HOWEVER, "facts" that emerge in the early hours and days of such events are often wrong, so take what we "know" with a grain of salt, as it may turn out later to be false. In this piece, I will probably refer to what we know about the shooting once or twice, but always keep in mind that what we know may be wrong, and be ready to accept the truth when it does emerge.
Yesterday's attack left us with many of the expected reactions, but we were also treated to the bizarre sight of news reporters mocking conservatives who were praying for the victims of the attack!
News reporters were grasping at straws, trying to imply things by what they chose to highlight. For example, an article in Bloomberg focused on the fact that the shooting took place "less than two miles" from a Planned Parenthood clinic. Horrors! The fact that there was a Church located less than half a mile from the shooting wasn't important, I suppose. They later explained on Twitter that there was no connection, and the reference in the article was scrubbed.
![]()
Then there came the inevitable calls for gun control, like in this LA Times article. The author calls the SCOTUS Heller ruling "a wrongheaded interpretation" of the Second Amendment. Thankfully, the author says, SCOTUS said the right to own a gun wasn't absolute, and that means that anything and everything is on the table. I say that, based upon the list of "common sense measures" that follow:
That's a heck of a list, and quite a bit of it is draconian. A background check must be run before a father can give his daughter or son a gun to go hunting or target shooting? Get rid of concealed carry laws? And of course he reiterates the old canard that a gun at home is only safe if it unloaded, the trigger is locked, and it is stashed behind locked doors. The fact that all that renders the gun useless for self-defense is, I suppose, irrelevant. No scary-looking guns (that is what "military-style" means, semi-auto weapons that look scary), and no high-capacity magazines.
The problem is that most of these have been tried, and we know for a fact that they don't reduce violent crime rates. The national "Assault Weapons Ban" that was in effect for a decade (from 1994 to 2004) banned the scary-looking "military-style" weapons, and also banned new high-capacity magazines. The result? The ban did not reduce violent crime in the slightest. Trigger locks and mandatory storage laws haven't done anything to reduce violent crime, either. And at the moment, each and every gun sale by a licensed gun dealer is subject to a background check, no matter where that sale takes place, i.e. in a gun shop, at a gun show, or over the internet. Having a father do a background check on his own son or daughter is simply ludicrous, a fever dream from an overly excited gun control nut. As to concealed carry laws, studies have repeatedly shown that concealed carry laws do NOT increase crime rates.
In fact, since 2007 the number of concealed carry permits has almost tripled, from 4.6 million to 12.8 million. During the same period, murder rates have dropped by 25 percent. If concealed carry were such a bad thing, surely such a massive increase in the number of people carrying would increase the murder rate? Maybe?
I understand the desire for action, I feel it too, but I don't want just anything done. If we take any action, it should be EFFECTIVE action. Any serious proposal should be something that might actually reduce violent crime rates, not just a rehash of the entire traditional liberal wish list of gun control measures. None of the proposals made by the LA Times would decrease the violent crime rate, so none of them should be implemented. Period. The only way these proposals could be considered effective is if the real purpose is to limit access to guns... in that they might be successful. But that is a far different thing from the violent crime rate, which I surmise liberals don't REALLY care about.
And they weren't alone. Over at Slate.com, Mark Joseph Stern also weighs in supporting gun control. Like the LA Times, he begins by bashing the SCOTUS Heller decision, but grudgingly allows that it is the law of the land.
How nice of Mark to "assume" what SCOTUS said was a fact and is, after all, the current law of the land. Then he takes the plunge:
Mark presents his politically motivated assumption as a fact, that only "limiting access to firearms" would (not could, he presents it as dead cert) reduce mass shootings and the number of those killed by an assailant wielding a gun. This is demonstrably false, simply by looking at those areas known as the "Murder Capital" of the United States. For a long time it was Washington DC, which had an almost total ban on gun ownership. Since the Heller ruling, more people are owning guns, and the crime rate has dropped. Other cities with tight gun control laws have high crime rates, i.e. New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. All of these places tried "limiting access to firearms," but the result was not the nirvana that Mark Stern imagines. Like the other gun control measures, we have tried this, and the results weren't pretty.
The New York Times weighed in similarly. Nicholas Kristof begins with what at first seems to be a promising, or at least a new, approach to the issue.
However, as he continues, it's clear that he's looking at the problem pretty much the same way that most liberals do: The people aren't the problem, it's the guns.
Oh, the universal background check boogeyman. The fact is that criminals don't get their guns from a source that would reasonably be expected to obey the law and run a background check. No matter how you change the laws, criminals will get guns. You will never get 100% compliance on this, because CRIMINALS WILL BREAK THE LAW. Surprising as that simple fact is to liberals, it IS a fact. Another element of this proposal that he ignores entirely is that a true "universal background check" is impossible without a comprehensive gun registry. If you don't know who owns the guns, how can you even know a transfer occurred? You can't, obviously, which is where the universal gun registry comes in.
Next, he proposes that people SUSPECTED of a crime be denied the right to own a gun.
Keep in mind that the terrorism watch list is riddled with errors, and until recently (and only by court order) have they included a method for people to challenge their inclusion on the list. That method isn't very good, at the moment, and the last I heard the court was considering ordering them to get their ducks in a row, like, ASAP. So, Nicholas believes that Americans should be denied a constitutional right without due process and based upon suspicion nebulous enough that no arrest is currently possible. Nice, Nicholas, but not even remotely Constitutional. Of course, Nicholas doesn't think the measure is unconstitutional, he thinks it is a basic step to curb gun access by violent offenders. But keep in mind that folks on the terrorism watch list aren't necessarily "violent offenders"... if they were, they'd be arrested.
Then he actually flirts with the truth, but only for a moment.
Not every shooting is preventable. That's not only right, it's an understatement. Most shootings are not preventable, at least not by the "one-size-fits-all" laws being bandied about by Nicholas and Mark.
Nicholas then closes his piece with this pithy tidbit.
Now, now, Nicholas, did you read the quote that you embrace so enthusiastically? Reagan said, and I quote, "IF." The gun control proposals being pushed by Nicholas and Mark won't, in fact, reduce violent crime rates. We know that because they've been tried in the past and haven't done so. As long as you keep pushing the same old "solutions" that don't really fix the problem, expect myself and others to call you out on that fact.
When (at this point I'm terribly tempted to say IF) you come up with a proposal that might actually work to reduce violent crime rates, come talk to the rest of us who are prepared to be reasonable. But as long as you cling desperately to your liberal fixation on getting rid of guns, there's really nothing to discuss. Your proposals don't work, and I won't agree to a proposal that won't work.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
At this moment, we do not know for certain what happened or why, or who did it. Yes, details are beginning to emerge, such as the names of the alleged shooters, Syed Farook and Tafsheen Malik, as well as a supposed connection to radical Islam. HOWEVER, "facts" that emerge in the early hours and days of such events are often wrong, so take what we "know" with a grain of salt, as it may turn out later to be false. In this piece, I will probably refer to what we know about the shooting once or twice, but always keep in mind that what we know may be wrong, and be ready to accept the truth when it does emerge.
Yesterday's attack left us with many of the expected reactions, but we were also treated to the bizarre sight of news reporters mocking conservatives who were praying for the victims of the attack!
That’s when things got super weird. For some reason, much of the media began mocking the efficacy of prayer. This was happening while victims of the shooting were actually asking people to pray. I mean, the critiques were everywhere. An editor at ThinkProgress said, and I quote, “Stop thinking. Stop praying.” There’s a bumper sticker for you!
News reporters were grasping at straws, trying to imply things by what they chose to highlight. For example, an article in Bloomberg focused on the fact that the shooting took place "less than two miles" from a Planned Parenthood clinic. Horrors! The fact that there was a Church located less than half a mile from the shooting wasn't important, I suppose. They later explained on Twitter that there was no connection, and the reference in the article was scrubbed.
Then there came the inevitable calls for gun control, like in this LA Times article. The author calls the SCOTUS Heller ruling "a wrongheaded interpretation" of the Second Amendment. Thankfully, the author says, SCOTUS said the right to own a gun wasn't absolute, and that means that anything and everything is on the table. I say that, based upon the list of "common sense measures" that follow:
So let's get at it. There is no need for civilians to own military-style weapons, or magazines that hold large numbers of cartridges that maximize carnage. There is no justification for selling or transferring a firearm to anyone who has not passed a stringent background check, whether it's a father turning over a gun to a daughter, or a gun shop selling to a stranger. We need to get rid of most concealed-carry laws and make sure there are no guns on school campuses. We need more trigger locks, locked cabinets and gun buybacks.
That's a heck of a list, and quite a bit of it is draconian. A background check must be run before a father can give his daughter or son a gun to go hunting or target shooting? Get rid of concealed carry laws? And of course he reiterates the old canard that a gun at home is only safe if it unloaded, the trigger is locked, and it is stashed behind locked doors. The fact that all that renders the gun useless for self-defense is, I suppose, irrelevant. No scary-looking guns (that is what "military-style" means, semi-auto weapons that look scary), and no high-capacity magazines.
The problem is that most of these have been tried, and we know for a fact that they don't reduce violent crime rates. The national "Assault Weapons Ban" that was in effect for a decade (from 1994 to 2004) banned the scary-looking "military-style" weapons, and also banned new high-capacity magazines. The result? The ban did not reduce violent crime in the slightest. Trigger locks and mandatory storage laws haven't done anything to reduce violent crime, either. And at the moment, each and every gun sale by a licensed gun dealer is subject to a background check, no matter where that sale takes place, i.e. in a gun shop, at a gun show, or over the internet. Having a father do a background check on his own son or daughter is simply ludicrous, a fever dream from an overly excited gun control nut. As to concealed carry laws, studies have repeatedly shown that concealed carry laws do NOT increase crime rates.
In fact, since 2007 the number of concealed carry permits has almost tripled, from 4.6 million to 12.8 million. During the same period, murder rates have dropped by 25 percent. If concealed carry were such a bad thing, surely such a massive increase in the number of people carrying would increase the murder rate? Maybe?
I understand the desire for action, I feel it too, but I don't want just anything done. If we take any action, it should be EFFECTIVE action. Any serious proposal should be something that might actually reduce violent crime rates, not just a rehash of the entire traditional liberal wish list of gun control measures. None of the proposals made by the LA Times would decrease the violent crime rate, so none of them should be implemented. Period. The only way these proposals could be considered effective is if the real purpose is to limit access to guns... in that they might be successful. But that is a far different thing from the violent crime rate, which I surmise liberals don't REALLY care about.
And they weren't alone. Over at Slate.com, Mark Joseph Stern also weighs in supporting gun control. Like the LA Times, he begins by bashing the SCOTUS Heller decision, but grudgingly allows that it is the law of the land.
"Let us assume, though, that private gun ownership may be an aspect of constitutional liberty."
How nice of Mark to "assume" what SCOTUS said was a fact and is, after all, the current law of the land. Then he takes the plunge:
On the other side, we have the possibility of fewer mass shootings and fewer gun deaths. We could make that possibility a reality, but we could only do so by limiting access to firearms.
Mark presents his politically motivated assumption as a fact, that only "limiting access to firearms" would (not could, he presents it as dead cert) reduce mass shootings and the number of those killed by an assailant wielding a gun. This is demonstrably false, simply by looking at those areas known as the "Murder Capital" of the United States. For a long time it was Washington DC, which had an almost total ban on gun ownership. Since the Heller ruling, more people are owning guns, and the crime rate has dropped. Other cities with tight gun control laws have high crime rates, i.e. New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. All of these places tried "limiting access to firearms," but the result was not the nirvana that Mark Stern imagines. Like the other gun control measures, we have tried this, and the results weren't pretty.
The New York Times weighed in similarly. Nicholas Kristof begins with what at first seems to be a promising, or at least a new, approach to the issue.
We can improve public safety without eliminating guns.
However, as he continues, it's clear that he's looking at the problem pretty much the same way that most liberals do: The people aren't the problem, it's the guns.
What we should focus on is curbing access to guns among people who present the greatest risk. An imperative first step is universal background checks to acquire a gun. New Harvard research suggests that about 40 percent of guns in America are acquired without a background check — which is just unconscionable.
Oh, the universal background check boogeyman. The fact is that criminals don't get their guns from a source that would reasonably be expected to obey the law and run a background check. No matter how you change the laws, criminals will get guns. You will never get 100% compliance on this, because CRIMINALS WILL BREAK THE LAW. Surprising as that simple fact is to liberals, it IS a fact. Another element of this proposal that he ignores entirely is that a true "universal background check" is impossible without a comprehensive gun registry. If you don't know who owns the guns, how can you even know a transfer occurred? You can't, obviously, which is where the universal gun registry comes in.
Next, he proposes that people SUSPECTED of a crime be denied the right to own a gun.
Astonishingly, it’s perfectly legal even for people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns in the United States. More than 2,000 terrorism suspects did indeed purchase guns in the United States between 2004 and 2014, according to the Government Accountability Office and The Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Democrats have repeatedly proposed closing that loophole, but the National Rifle Association and its Republican allies have blocked those efforts, so it’s still legal.
Keep in mind that the terrorism watch list is riddled with errors, and until recently (and only by court order) have they included a method for people to challenge their inclusion on the list. That method isn't very good, at the moment, and the last I heard the court was considering ordering them to get their ducks in a row, like, ASAP. So, Nicholas believes that Americans should be denied a constitutional right without due process and based upon suspicion nebulous enough that no arrest is currently possible. Nice, Nicholas, but not even remotely Constitutional. Of course, Nicholas doesn't think the measure is unconstitutional, he thinks it is a basic step to curb gun access by violent offenders. But keep in mind that folks on the terrorism watch list aren't necessarily "violent offenders"... if they were, they'd be arrested.
Then he actually flirts with the truth, but only for a moment.
It’s not clear what policy, if any, could have prevented the killings in San Bernardino. Not every shooting is preventable. But we’re not even trying.
Not every shooting is preventable. That's not only right, it's an understatement. Most shootings are not preventable, at least not by the "one-size-fits-all" laws being bandied about by Nicholas and Mark.
Nicholas then closes his piece with this pithy tidbit.
He [Ronald Reagan] added that if tighter gun regulations “were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” Republicans, listen to your sainted leader.
Now, now, Nicholas, did you read the quote that you embrace so enthusiastically? Reagan said, and I quote, "IF." The gun control proposals being pushed by Nicholas and Mark won't, in fact, reduce violent crime rates. We know that because they've been tried in the past and haven't done so. As long as you keep pushing the same old "solutions" that don't really fix the problem, expect myself and others to call you out on that fact.
When (at this point I'm terribly tempted to say IF) you come up with a proposal that might actually work to reduce violent crime rates, come talk to the rest of us who are prepared to be reasonable. But as long as you cling desperately to your liberal fixation on getting rid of guns, there's really nothing to discuss. Your proposals don't work, and I won't agree to a proposal that won't work.