All this is in reaction to the horrendous murders at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school, and this is also an illustration of the progressive urge to “do something” whenever a tragedy, crisis, scandal, disaster, or failure takes place. If it seems that the progressives are constantly trying to “do something,” that is because there always is something bad going on somewhere, and in the immortal thoughts of the pupils of the guru of Community Activism, Saul Alinsky – one should never let a good crisis go to waste. When we confront disasters or tragedies, we should be alert to the risks of stampeding into actions just for the sake of "doing something." Hasty responses often have unintended consequences. Back when Enron collapsed, we got Sarbanes-Oxley, and when the loan market crash led to the financial crisis of 2008 (remember, the one that propelled Barack Obama to the White House), we got Dodd-Frank and Elizabeth Warren’s offspring, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and those three regulatory nightmares have, we contend, inflicted far greater cost on the US economy and banking system and financial system than the crises they were created to prevent. After all, one of the beauties and wonders of the Free Market is that it is self-correcting over time – if there is a crisis or a blunder or a bad decision or the like, the markets will adjust and recover, and usually will be stronger than before. On the other hand, bad regulations, unlike a crash, aren’t merely a one-time thing, but they will inflict their damage perpetually; or at least, until they are changed or amended, but that’s not easy to do.
When an anti-gun activist wants to prohibit those under 21 from buying weapons, he no doubt is seeing all 19-year olds in the image of the Florida high school shooter. When we argue against such a blanket prohibition, it is because we see the potential victims of crime, for example, a 20-year old woman who has been threatened. By all means, let’s keep the guns out of the hands of felons, whether 19 or any age, but let us do so because they are felons, not because of their age. When we use age as a reason, we are restricting the many good and honest who have committed no offense and will never commit an offense. And, being honest, they are unlikely to circumvent the law, so will remain unarmed, and a bit more vulnerable.. On the other hand, the felon, being dishonest, will almost certainly attempt to circumvent the law, and will continue to commit depredations whether he has a firearm or not.
Panicked actions and lynch mobs are seldom correct. That’s not to say that we should do nothing. One thing we should do is return to the practice of prosecuting crimes and putting violent offenses on the record. Not only would this tend to take criminals off the streets, it also would tend to keep them from buying firearms. As we have been pointing out: had the criminal offenses of the high school shooter been in his package, he could not have obtained his weapons. And if the football coach with a concealed carry permit had been able to possess his gun on the school property or if one of the four armed deputies had entered the building instead of staying outside, the shooter probably would have been stopped much, much sooner
We all should support steps that keep firearms out of the hands of felons or dangerous people. We all should oppose those steps that shave the effect of disarming honest citizens.