National Review Online
Monday, October 02, 2017
The massacre in Las Vegas was horrifying, the reaction to
it dispiriting.
The dead and wounded had not even been transported away
from the killing field when the by-now-familiar disinformation campaign began
on social media, with baseless reporting about the killer’s identity and
motivation ranging from claims that he was an Islamic extremist to tales that
he was an angry left-winger who targeted the country-music concert because he
thought it sure to be full of Donald Trump fans. As of this writing, there is
no indication of what motivated the killer beyond the desire to kill. There was
no political or religious manifesto, and his mystified brother reported that he
had no such interests. He had no known mental-health record and no criminal
record.
The instant public-policy takeaways were, as usual, a mix
of willful ignorance, hysteria, and progressive wish-fulfillment. Vox sprinted to report that “since Trump
took office, more Americans have been killed by white American men with no
connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners.” Well. Trump has
been in office since last January, during which time there have been no major
Islamic terrorist attacks. Progressives insisted that the incident be labeled
“terrorism,” though it is not clear that the killer had in mind any particular political
or religious agenda, which is how federal law distinguishes terrorism from
simple mass murder (Nevada law does not require a political motive for an act
to be defined as terrorism).
And then there was the inevitable firearms panic. Lydia
Polgreen, editor of the Huffington Post,
demanded to know why automatic rifles had not already been restricted. When she
was informed that automatic rifles had been severely restricted for decades,
she explained that she meant “semiautomatic” rifles, but did not seem to know
the difference. That is about par for the course in the gun-control debate.
As of this writing, it is not publicly known what sort of
instruments the killer used in Las Vegas. Audio recordings captured what
sounded like fully automatic gunfire, and that was attested to by experts with
considerable experience in the field. If indeed it is the case that fully
automatic weapons were used, that will bring up some interesting questions.
Contrary to the usual progressive mythology, you cannot simply walk into a
Walmart and buy an automatic rifle. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily
regulated since the 1930s, and the manufacture or importation of new ones for
the civilian market was abolished in 1986. Automatic firearms manufactured
before 1986 can be purchased — at a price of tens of thousands of dollars — by
buyers who pass an extensive background check conducted by the FBI and pay a
special tax on them. So stringent is the regulation of these weapons that there
have been by most counts only three episodes of a legal, civilian-owned fully
automatic weapon having been used in a violent crime since Al Capone was
tearing up Chicago. But things that happen rarely are not things that happen
never: No one was thinking very much about fertilizer bombs before the
destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City.
It may be the case that the killer in Las Vegas acquired
his weapons legally. It may be the case that he acquired them on the black
market, and it may be the case that he was able to modify legal semiautomatic
weapons. But there are no obvious public-policy prescriptions to be had from
any of those scenarios.
There were, so far as current reports can show, no
obvious red flags in this case. That is unusual. One of the maddening things
about violence in the United States is that so much of it is, if not exactly
preventable, then at least predictable: The majority of murders in New York
City, and most major American cities, are committed by men with prior criminal
histories, often for violent crimes and not infrequently for weapons
violations. We have straw-buyer laws on the books, but these go routinely
unenforced, with federal prosecutors unwilling to invest resources in putting
away low-level criminals — or their mothers or girlfriends — on relatively
minor weapons charges. In several high-profile mass shootings, the killers were
known to law-enforcement and mental-health authorities long before they
committed their crimes.
The usual ghouls who deliver gun-control speeches from
atop the corpses in these cases put themselves in a funny position: They insist
that they do not want widespread firearms seizures or to revoke Americans’
basic constitutional rights, and then they offer what they insist are
“commonsensical” gun-control measures that would do nothing to prevent the
crimes that command our attention.
The sobering fact is that mass murders have become an ordinary
part of our cultural landscape. There are people who, in the depths of some
ineffable despair or rage, desire to exit the world in a hail of bullets and a
flood of blood. Some of them are clearly mentally ill, some of them have
half-formed political notions — and some of them just want to kill a great many
people before taking their own lives. If there were some public-policy
innovation consistent with the principles of our constitutional order that
would prevent this, we’d support it. But there isn’t one. We are not going to
convert our country into a police state — and free, open, liberal societies are
vulnerable to acts of mass violence, not only in the United States but in
Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries, including those with
stricter gun-control laws. Those Kalashnikov rifles that were used in the Charlie Hebdo massacre are not legal in
France.
So, do nothing?
No. There are many things that could and should be done.
The vast majority of murders in the United States are not spectacular crimes on
the Las Vegas model, but ordinary street crimes in places such as Chicago and
Cleveland. We can and should do more to prevent those, both through enforcing
existing weapons laws — including cracking down on straw buyers and handing down
stiffer sentences for violent gun crimes short of homicide — and through
improving our national practices when it comes to parole and probation, mental
health and addiction, and local policing. Would that prevent a Las Vegas–style
massacre? No, but it might have an effect on the 99 percent of murders that
happen every day in a less dramatic fashion. And there are broader cultural
issues — for instance, the absence of fathers from so many homes — that are
mighty contributors to our national crime scene.
As for Las Vegas: As it stands, the facts do not argue
for any particular policy reforms, and while we will withhold judgment until
more is known, we should all be open to the possibility that not every crime
demands a new law, and that not every ill in a large and complex society such
as ours can be solved through public policy. Our friends on the left like to
mock those who offer prayers for the victims and survivors of these horrific
events, as though there were no Power above politics. We offer our prayers for
souls of the lost and for the comfort of the living — and for the prudence and
efficacy of those charged with the human response to these inhuman acts.
No comments:
Post a Comment