. . . since it's obvious that the obliviots have still not got the idea.
The New York Times has published a front-page editorial for the first time since 1920, calling for stricter gun control. The New York Daily News repeated the lie that "80% of Americans want stricter gun control laws" (which is based on a single, cherry-picked, carefully targeted poll that made sure it got the answers its sponsors wanted, and is contradicted by every other authoritative, objective gun control poll out there), and accused Republican presidential candidates of being willing to pray about the problem, but not to do anything about it (i.e. call for, or help to pass, stricter gun control laws). President Obama himself used the San Bernardino terrorist attack to call for stricter gun control measures, particularly the (without-due-process and therefore unconstitutional) denial of the right to buy firearms to those on terror watch lists. His Attorney-General unforgivably called the tragedy "a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change". I'm sure the families of those murdered in cold blood were warmed by her characterization of their deaths as 'wonderful'.
There have been many comments in the blogosphere about the moonbattishness of these proposals and the lack of common sense among those behind them. See, for example, Never Yet Melted, New Jovian Thunderbolt, PawPaw's House, The Silicon Graybeard and - on the mainstream side - National Review. There are many more. Perhaps the best of all comes from my friend and fellow author Larry Correia. It's worth your time to go and read it in full, as well as his earlier smackdown of the most common gun control memes. Here he is discussing that earlier article on Fox News.
The real problem is, the gun control crowd are pursuing a false objective. It has no relation whatsoever to reality. You see, they're trying to regulate a thing, rather than the people misusing that thing. That's doomed to failure right from the start.
An object - any object - has no moral sense of its own. It can be used for its intended purpose, or for criminal purposes. Consider:
- A hammer is intended to drive a nail, or impart energy to a chisel, or something like that. However, a criminal can misuse it to smash someone's skull. Is the hammer guilty of that crime? No - the person wielding it is guilty.
- A motor vehicle is intended to provide transportation, or be used in sport, or any of a number of other lawful occupations. It can also be misused by a drunk driver to kill or injure innocent people. Is the vehicle guilty of that crime? No - we charge the driver, not the vehicle.
- A spreadsheet program is used to perform mathematical operations on rows and columns of figures. An accountant can use it to keep the books of a corporation; or a criminal can use it to add up the proceeds of his crimes, and organize the finances of his criminal enterprise. Is the spreadsheet guilty of the crimes committed by that criminal? No. He's guilty, not the tools he used.
- A firearm can be used to hunt, or shoot at targets, or kept in reserve for self-defense - all legitimate, legal, entirely moral and appropriate reasons. It can also be used by criminals or terrorists to injure or kill innocent people. Is the firearm guilty of the latter perpetrators' crimes? No - we charge them with the offense, not the guns in their hands.
In every case, and in any other you might care to mention, the object or tool or thing used by the criminal is innocent of any criminal intent or action. It's never held responsible or liable for what happens. Always, the perpetrator is the one charged with a crime.
To ban guns, or restrict their circulation, is to miss the point entirely. A gun has no moral sense. It can't choose whether or not it will be used for legal or illegal purposes. It's a thing. To ban the thing will do nothing to control the person who wants to misuse it. If he can't get a gun, he'll get something else. Consider the casualties that can be caused by, for example, firebombs - so-called 'Molotov cocktails' or something more sophisticated. You want to know how deadly those can be in confined spaces? Look at the carnage caused by nightclub fires. In that list, casualties ranged from a few dozen dead and injured, up to more than one and a half thousand. All a wannabe terrorist has to do is to recruit a few friends, go to a local nightspot, overcome any security outside the premises (and that only for a few moments - pepper spray would do it), and toss several firebombs through every door and window. The resultant casualties might dwarf those of the terror attacks in Paris last month. The same casualties can be inflicted by tossing firebombs into a crowded movie theater, or into a crowd at a shopping mall (kids queuing to visit Santa, perhaps?). No firearms would be needed . . . and there's no way to control empty bottles, gasoline and twisted rags to make fuses. Such weapons could not be banned or prevented from being made.
Some obliviots seem to think that if you take away the instrument (i.e. the gun), terror attacks and criminal violence would cease immediately. Nothing could be further from the truth. What do you think happened in the world before firearms were invented? Was it somehow magically preserved from crime and violence? Like hell it was! Swords, spears, sharpened scythes, sticks (see quarterstaff), bows and arrows, and an untold number of other weapons, manufactured as such or improvised, made those eras just as deadly as our own, proportionate to their population. The invention of firearms merely added a new element to an already violent world. To focus on the firearm as the cause of that violence is to completely misunderstand human nature. As the late, great Jeff Cooper pointed out:
The media ... generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.
That says it all. It's incontrovertibly true . . . yet the obliviots will not accept it. They're blind to reality. They must be stopped, for fear that they may remake society in their obliviot image - which will make it a society not worth living in for any of us.
EDITED TO ADD: Karl Denninger weighs in with his usual acerbic dose of common sense and reality. Unsurprisingly, I agree with him. Go read his whole article. It's worth it.