Inevitability is an interesting word, meaning that something will ALWAYS happen... it is fated, destined, inevitable, there is no way to avoid it. Two days ago, on Wednesday, August 26th, Bryce Williams shot and killed a reporter and her cameraman on live television. And inevitability raises its ugly head, as, within hours, gun control nuts raced to condemn, not the shooter, but all guns owned by anybody, anywhere. It happens every time, liberals gushing over how tragic it is and how only a heartless person wouldn't see the need for gun control, immediately and drastically. But do they really care about the victims as much as they claim?
Think about it. Over the past two days, we have heard the same old calls for new measures that we've heard for decades after every highly publicized shooting. Let's look at the four major proposals we've heard in response to Williams murders:
1) Expand the system to Universal background checks: This is one of the most common proposals, even though it is misguided. Every sale from a licensed dealer, even if made on the internet or at a gun show, already has to go through the background check system. Expanding that to include private sales and gifts would not only overload the system, but also require a full firearm registry... how else would they know a background check was needed? Enforcement would be a nightmare. However, in this case, Bryce purchased his firearm from a licensed dealer and passed a background check. So expanding the system wouldn't have stopped Williams.
2) Get rid of "high capacity" magazines: This is another oldie but goodie, and it calls for limiting magazines for semi-automatic weapons to carry no more than 10 bullets at a time, to limit the amount of damage a shooter can do without having to change magazines. However, Williams fired only 8 bullets in total, so this measure wouldn't have affected anything, either.
3) Ban "assault weapons": The grand-daddy of all recycled gun control proposals, it classifies rifles as "assault weapons" based upon largely cosmetic features such as a forward hand grip or a bayonet attachment. If they look scary, they should be banned. But in this case, Williams used a handgun, not any kind of assault weapon. So, this measure wouldn't have impacted this event in any way, either.
4) Change the system to keep more mentally unstable people from owning guns: On the surface this sounds okay, but the devil is in the details. We already have programs where those adjudicated mentally unstable cannot pass a background check, and this is a call to expand it so more things are included on the list of disqualifying conditions. The problem here is that Williams has no history of mental illness or treatment, which means no amount of expanding this program would have affected him in the slightest. In other words, this wouldn't have stopped him, either.
As you can see, none of the proposals we're hearing would have stopped Bryce Williams from obtaining his gun and killing his victims.
In my opinion, there are two kinds of people who respond with a "do anything" attitude at times like these. The first is the family and friends of the victims, who are suffering unimaginable hurt and looking for anything to help heal their sorrow. I get that. But you can't convince me this applies to politicians and news anchors from the other side of the country. This brings us to the second kind of people, and that is people willing to use the tragedy to push their pet political program or issue.
Think about it. Why else would a politician advocate their pet gun control measure, mere hours after people have died, KNOWING that the measure wouldn't have stopped that killing from taking place?
It is my opinion that politicians who advocate the same old measures that have been advocated for years care far more for their own political advancement than they do for the victims of the tragedies they exploit. Why else would they seize every tragedy to try and advance gun control measures that would have been ineffective in stopping each latest shooting? Because to them, the battle to enact gun control legislation is worth more than the lives of the victims expended to give these politicians their latest opportunity.
And in my opinion, such people are despicable.
Coming next, I'll ruminate on what, if anything, can be done that would be effective.
Clik here to view.
Think about it. Over the past two days, we have heard the same old calls for new measures that we've heard for decades after every highly publicized shooting. Let's look at the four major proposals we've heard in response to Williams murders:
1) Expand the system to Universal background checks: This is one of the most common proposals, even though it is misguided. Every sale from a licensed dealer, even if made on the internet or at a gun show, already has to go through the background check system. Expanding that to include private sales and gifts would not only overload the system, but also require a full firearm registry... how else would they know a background check was needed? Enforcement would be a nightmare. However, in this case, Bryce purchased his firearm from a licensed dealer and passed a background check. So expanding the system wouldn't have stopped Williams.
2) Get rid of "high capacity" magazines: This is another oldie but goodie, and it calls for limiting magazines for semi-automatic weapons to carry no more than 10 bullets at a time, to limit the amount of damage a shooter can do without having to change magazines. However, Williams fired only 8 bullets in total, so this measure wouldn't have affected anything, either.
3) Ban "assault weapons": The grand-daddy of all recycled gun control proposals, it classifies rifles as "assault weapons" based upon largely cosmetic features such as a forward hand grip or a bayonet attachment. If they look scary, they should be banned. But in this case, Williams used a handgun, not any kind of assault weapon. So, this measure wouldn't have impacted this event in any way, either.
4) Change the system to keep more mentally unstable people from owning guns: On the surface this sounds okay, but the devil is in the details. We already have programs where those adjudicated mentally unstable cannot pass a background check, and this is a call to expand it so more things are included on the list of disqualifying conditions. The problem here is that Williams has no history of mental illness or treatment, which means no amount of expanding this program would have affected him in the slightest. In other words, this wouldn't have stopped him, either.
As you can see, none of the proposals we're hearing would have stopped Bryce Williams from obtaining his gun and killing his victims.
In my opinion, there are two kinds of people who respond with a "do anything" attitude at times like these. The first is the family and friends of the victims, who are suffering unimaginable hurt and looking for anything to help heal their sorrow. I get that. But you can't convince me this applies to politicians and news anchors from the other side of the country. This brings us to the second kind of people, and that is people willing to use the tragedy to push their pet political program or issue.
Think about it. Why else would a politician advocate their pet gun control measure, mere hours after people have died, KNOWING that the measure wouldn't have stopped that killing from taking place?
It is my opinion that politicians who advocate the same old measures that have been advocated for years care far more for their own political advancement than they do for the victims of the tragedies they exploit. Why else would they seize every tragedy to try and advance gun control measures that would have been ineffective in stopping each latest shooting? Because to them, the battle to enact gun control legislation is worth more than the lives of the victims expended to give these politicians their latest opportunity.
And in my opinion, such people are despicable.
Coming next, I'll ruminate on what, if anything, can be done that would be effective.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.