By Matthew Cochran
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Whenever high-profile bullets start flying, calls for new
gun control measures are never far behind. In what has become our new national pastime,
the tragedy in Dallas was immediately politicized, with the Left demanding more
firearm regulations as the simple and “obvious” solution to the far more
complicated problems of an overly-militarized police force with ineffective
accountability and the violent tribalism of the “Black Lives Matter” crowd
forged by the Left’s own virulent identity politics. One would think that when
five police officers are murdered in apparent retaliation for the growing
number of wrongful deaths at the hands of law enforcement, the types of weapons
used would be irrelevant compared to defusing an escalating cycle of violence
that corrodes civil society.
It was even worse a month ago in Orlando, when Internet,
radio, and television were all inundated with nonsense soon after the mass
shooting there. Here the reaction was even more stilted, with the U.S. Justice
Department redacting the shooter’s ISIS connection and the mainstream media
frantically reaching for its customary scapegoats no matter how poorly they fit
the facts.
If one were to judge solely by media reports and liberals
on social media, one would think an ambulatory AR-15 rifle walked into a club
and killed dozens of LGBT people because it was home-schooled by conservative
Christians.
These are bizarre and unreasonable responses flung about
before the facts come in and people have a chance to mourn. They also set the
tone for demands for “common-sense” gun regulation to prevent more untimely
deaths. Progressives quickly become exasperated that anyone would resist such
measures. It perplexes them that anyone could be so cruel, uncaring, and
blinded by ideology to the suffering of others to refuse some simple and
practical rules about who can acquire guns.
Liberals Keep
Demonstrating Incompetence
So, liberals and progressives, let me lay it out plainly
and clearly: One’s invocation of common sense invariably falls on deaf ears
when one is uncommonly senseless. The Left’s reactions to Dallas and Orlando do
not exhibit the kind of good judgment necessary for making sensible decisions
about who is allowed to own which weapons.
Some want to ban what they call “assault” weapons. Now,
that’s a rhetorical label rather than a meaningful term, but behind it is the
wish to outlaw weapons whose design and purpose is primarily to kill large
numbers of people at once. On its face, that sounds like a sensible reaction to
someone killing a large number of innocent people at once. While I consider it
misguided, there is a straightforward logic to the broader sentiment. That is,
until the Left demonstrates the kind of gross ignorance and hyperventilating
fear that makes one incapable of the sound judgment required to transform
broader sentiments into practical actions.
Progressives are among the first to note that people fear
the unfamiliar—the things they do not understand. That’s why they work so hard
to promote understanding for those minorities the Left says are unduly feared.
It’s why they have developed so many labels ending in “phobia” for those who
disagree with them. Unfortunately, they’re also the first to forget that this
maxim applies to themselves as well. Contrary to how they try to present
themselves, progressives are not enlightened beyond the reach of such human
foibles.
More often than any other subject, we probably notice
liberal incompetence on matters with which they have little experience such as
religion. Liberal reporters tend to report on the pious as though they were
discovering a remote tribe of hunters and gatherers for the first time. But
while that may be the most frequently exposed inexperience, it’s not the only
one.
I’m no gun aficionado, but I understand the same is true
about firearms. When reporters, politicians, and other decision- and
opinion-makers get basic facts wrong like what gun was used, whether fully
automatic and “military grade” weapons are readily available for civilian
purchase, and so forth on a regular basis, they merely demonstrate an ignorance
that should disqualify them from making sweeping decisions on which weapons
should be available for everyone.
Liberal Fear
Doesn’t Inspire Confidence, Either
As for the kind of overwhelming fear and terror that
drive out rational thought, Gersh Kuntzman provided the quintessential example
after the Orlando shooting.
I’ve shot pistols before, but never
something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting
explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).
The recoil bruised my shoulder. The
brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of
sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave
me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a
few times, I was anxious and irritable.
These are not the words of someone making a sober
assessment. They are the words of someone who, as Kuntzman admits, “was just
terrified.” He actually thinks firing a gun a few times gave him PTSD. Stephen
Green put it well at Instapundit: “Other than the fact that Gersh Kuntzman was
apparently holding the rifle incorrectly, firing it incorrectly, made an
incorrect (and shameful) claim about having PTSD, was incorrect that Mateen
used an AR-15 in the Orlando terror attack, and was incorrect about being able
to purchase a fully automatic ‘tactical machine gun,’ this is a totally
accurate piece he’s written for the Daily News.”
How are folks who practically wet themselves at a firing
range going to make sensible decisions about which weapons are too dangerous to
own? The more people want to pass gun laws because they got
scared at the sound of popping tires, the less likely anyone is to actually
trust them to do that.
Somehow You Keep
Using Your Power to Target Normal People
But banning a particular set of weapons is only one side
of the issue. The Left also wants to keep any dangerous weapon out of the hands
of dangerous people. That also sounds very sensible at first blush—it’s why we
have a fairly rigorous system of background checks in place already.
However, it seems much less reasonable once we begin to
see whom the Left often deems most dangerous. When they conspicuously ignore
actual motivations that don’t fit their narrative, such as the Dallas shooter’s
desire to kill white people or the Orlando shooter’s pledge of loyalty to ISIS,
they invariably cast blame elsewhere, and in the end, the whole prospect of
letting the Left keep weapons away from dangerous people makes much less sense.
When a gunman seemingly motivated by Black Nationalism
(not well-known for being a conservative ideology) targets white police
officers, it’s still Republicans who are really to blame because they hold the
wrong political positions. Likewise, every time a terrorist slaughters a bunch
of people, liberals fall all over themselves to assure everyone that a religion
characterized throughout its history by violent expansion is really a religion
of peace.
Instead, liberals try to find a host of bizarre ways to
somehow blame the murderous actions of a Muslim Democrat on conservatives,
Christians, Second Amendment supporters, or supporters of the North Carolina
bathroom bill. In light of this, it is perhaps understandable that Christians,
conservative gun-owners, and Republicans think that when liberals want to take
guns away from dangerous crazies, they really mean us—the law-abiding
gun-owners who aren’t out shooting people, but nevertheless disagree with
liberals on other issues.
Failing to Protect
Us Also Doesn’t Inspire Confidence
It’s no better when we move beyond popular rhetoric into
the realm of official acts. Orlando provoked many into asking why we shouldn’t
use the no-fly list or the terror watch list or some other official list to
enumerate who may not own a gun. Well, in addition to such lists being
notorious for lacking due process because they’re the products of unaccountable
bureaucrats, too many of those bureaucrats bear the same typically liberal
prejudices.
The FBI was watching Omar Mateen, but decided he wasn’t a
threat. The State Department shut down an investigation into his mosque because
it “unfairly singled out Muslims.” This fails to inspire much confidence that
public service will somehow improve on the Left’s typical ability to make good
judgment calls. From liberal office holders down to the rank-and-file, the Left
includes folks who think a boy’s declaration that he’s a girl really makes him
a girl, yet that a boy’s repeated declarations that he’s killing people on
behalf of ISIS has nothing to do with why he’s killing people. Quite frankly,
we would have to be insane to let people like that decide which of us should be
armed.
Our right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution
precisely because our founders wanted to put decisions about who is empowered
to defend themselves and their liberties outside the purview of mobs,
politicians, and bureaucrats whose interests in the matter run contrary to the
interests of the American people. Every time a mass shooting happens, the
knee-jerk reactions of the Left only prove the wisdom of that decision. If you
really want to pursue reasonable gun regulations, you need to start by being
reasonable in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment