. . .If a mass shooting occurs while a Republican is President, the shooting is his fault. If a mass shooting occurs while a Democrat is President, the shooting is the fault of some Republican somewhere, if not all of them. And even though it is hard to find a mass shooter who is a member of the NRA, the NRA is to blame for all shootings. As we have pointed out many times, these folks express far more anger at Republicans in general, the President specifically, and the NRA repeatedly than they ever do at the shooters themselves; and they never put any blame on weak enforcement of laws, or “turn ‘em loose” judges and juries that look hard for reasons not to incarcerate violent criminals.
To sum up: President Trump is to blame. Republicans are to blame. The NRA and other gun rights organizations are to blame.
The three groups listed in the second sentence above probably would like us to stop right here, for, they feel, what more needs be said? However, we think there is quite a bit more to say. For one thing, if President Trump is to be blamed because a shooter believed there are too many illegal immigrants in the USA, why wasn’t Sen. Bernie Sanders blamed for the shooting of Rep. Stephen Scalise on the ballfield a couple of years ago? After all, the shooter was a “Bernie volunteer.” Or the Dayton shooter last week – he was a strong supporter of Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Why is she not held to blame? And before we go any further, we want to make it completely clear that we are not blaming Senators Warren or Sanders for those shootings, nor should they be blamed, nor did they have anything to do with the shootings. But, in the same light, neither did President Trump have any association with the El Paso shooter, and the President should not be blamed for that shooting.
There is a belief, popular among the progressives and the news media, that all mass shooters are “angry white males.” Certainly, some of them are, but if, for what it’s worth, one looks at the faces of all 98 persons charged with shooting four or more people in a single incident in 2019, one will see faces that are black, white, brown or yellow – Hispanics, African-Americans, and Caucasians, with the “white males” constituting fewer than 40% of those charged. In the past decade there also have been quite a few committed by immigrants from the “Third World,” which should not be used to slur all immigrants from the third world but should be considered as evidence that not all mass killings are committed by “white males.”
Noting the El Paso shooter’s manifesto, which the President said “was consumed by racist hate,” the President said, “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul.” Well, that is very clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous, but of course it did not satisfy the nasty hard left who already have proclaimed that President Trump lacks mind, heart and soul. Sad to say, the nasty hard left seems to include more and more people once thought of as “moderates” or “in the main stream.”
The President wants America to “do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs,” to “stop the glorification of violence,” to “reform mental health laws” and to “make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms.” He also wants “legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty.” These steps seek to make it more difficult for dangerous people to obtain firearms, without making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to do so. The President wants to attack the problem by focusing on the deranged people who commit these horrendous crimes, unlike the proposals of the Democrats who desire to disarm Americans en masse, confiscate or ban firearms, or repeal the Second Amendment. He also said he would “be open and ready to listen and discuss all ideas that will actually work.”
In the very week of the Dayton and El Paso shootings, in Chicago that weekend seven people were shot dead and 46 others wounded, victims of various crimes, including at least two multiple shootings. Every week, and every weekend, there are multiple murders in America’s major metropolitan areas. As most of these are “one at a time” shootings instead of mass casualty shootings, they largely escape notice; that, and the fact that every one of those cities is now and has been for a long time governed by progressive Democrats – and where shootings are never attributed to the policies of those governments. According to information (from 2014) from the Crime Prevention Research Center, 68% of the murders in the United States take place in 5% of our counties.
The President did not call for “gun control” in the wake of the recent shootings, but he did advocate measures that would seek to “control” the shooters. These include encouraging a “red flag” law, which would strive to include in background checks certain mental health information that is excluded now. We add that “red flag” restrictions should be based on acts, not accusations. Perhaps the process could be more in keeping with due process if there were appropriate penalties for those who bring false, spiteful, or fabricated charges against a gun owner. Another step that could be taken to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons is to discontinue the practice of sealing juvenile records. Several of the shooters in recent years would never have passed a background check had their juvenile records been included in their packages. The practice of “gun-free zones” also should be reconsidered. Theoretically fine they may be, but in practice they assure an armed intruder that no one else in those premises has a firearm to use against him, and guarantee him a large group of defenseless targets.
Better to prevent a crime or a tragedy than to react to one. Let’s concede that there is no magic bullet solution to this problem and that it is highly unlikely that people who have broken or intend to break a myriad of laws that are already on the books will be deterred by one law more. One of the prime purposes of government is to protect its citizens. This can be done by making sure those citizens can have the means to protect themselves, and by striving to separate those who are dangerous threats from the peaceful and law-abiding citizen. Gun control will not accomplish either. Measures to control the criminals and to protect the rights of free people can do both.