Friday, January 11, 2013

Sandy Hook, The 2nd Amendment, Biden & Gun Control

“If you look at every one of the tragic events that have attracted so much attention, it’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you could have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened."

PJM quoting Joe Biden, Biden Drafts Gun Agenda While Acknowledging Weak Links to Tragedies, 10 January 2013

Every American shares the horror at what happened at Sandy Hook. That said, the far left has embraced Sandy Hook as an opening to try and pass all of the gun control legislation they can dream up. Yet, as the quote from Biden shows, even the far left acknowledges that their "solutions" are disconnected from anything that would have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre. Just to review:

- The shooter didn't buy his weapon, he stole it. There have been a plethora of plans floated for more background checks and more paperwork in the wake of Sandy Hook, none of which would have stopped the massacre.

- The Sandy Hook shooter used a .223 Bushmaster "assault rifle" to kill some or all of his victims. But the reality is that he had 20 minutes of free fire time once he entered the school and before police arrived. He could have used any type of fire to accomplish his carnage. Banning "assault rifles" would not have stopped Sandy Hook.

- Accepting the left's claim that "assault rifles" serve only one purpose - to kill people - that is a feature, not a bug. Just what does the far left think that the 2nd Amendment protects? Using weapons for skeet shooting? For hunting rabbits? No, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is, per the Supreme Court, to allow people to keep and bears arms in order to protect against "public and private violence." The AR15 is perhaps the most viable weapon for that purpose - especially for home defense and use by women, teens and people of limited strength. It is a weapon with virtually no recoil, it fires a bullet at very high velocity, thus having having "stopping power" in respect to criminals, and it can hold enough rounds in its magazine to be useful against multiple targets threatening violence.

- Expanding "gun free zones" or penalties for possessing fire arms inside or in the vicinity of schools is the biggest joke of all. One, it merely insures that the law abiding are disarmed for the criminals who, surprisingly enough, are not deterred by the fact that guns are outlawed there. "Gun free zones" only invite carnage. Two, the reality is that the "gun free zone" legislation is nothing more than a de facto ban on gun ownership among the law abiding, particularly in most cities. So, for example, if you are prevented by law from having a firearm within a thousand meters of a school, that would effectively act to disarm the majority of people living in most cities.

- The single "solution" to Sandy Hook, doing away with gun free zones as a matter of law and allowing some teachers and staff to carry concealed weapons, subject to reasonable requirements for training and certification, does not seem to be even within the realm of Biden's task force. - Limiting "high capacity magazines" has nothing to do with stopping what happened at Sandy Hook. One, magazines are simple to exchange - it takes only a second. It is not something that will slow down a criminal bent on firing more than ten rounds. Two, "high capacity magazines" are problematic, but for wholly practical reasons - they have a tendency to jam. Indeed, in the infantry, we never used anything over a 20 round magazine for our M16's for precisely that reason. The only reason for the left to fixate on magazine capacity is as a backdoor to outlawing weapons that are able to take "high capacity" magazines. Lastly, when it comes to self defense, unless someone on the left can assure me that my family will never be put in a position where their safety depends on firing more than ten rounds, then limiting magazine capacity is a restriction on my right to self defense.

- The only thing that even remotely comes close to addressing the causes of Sandy Hook have been some superficial discussions of mental illness. We will have to see what Biden's task force proposes, but I have zero trust in the left to do anything other than use this as a backdoor to gun control. I could envision the left trying to deny gun permits by law to anyone who ever visited a psychiatrist or whoever was once diagnosed with depression and put on anti-depressants. What we have not heard from Biden any serious discussion of allowing people with severe mental illness to be involuntarily institutionalized for evaluation and treatment.

So there you have it. What Biden will ultimately propose, we will have to wait until next week to find out. But you can be sure of one thing - it would not have stopped Sandy Hook, nor will it stop the next mass murder. The only thing that will stop that is if there is a sane person with a gun who fortuitously happens to be at the right place at the right time when the next mass murder is attempted.

No comments: