I’m dumbfounded by the gun control folks. The movie theater massacre hadn’t been in the news for five minutes before gun control advocacy was flying all around Twitter, facebook and the blogosphere. ABC News’ Brian Ross took it a step further and made a specious and incorrect connection between the shooter and the Tea Party on air on Good Morning America. I tweeted:
There were even articles written suggesting that it’s right to politicize the deaths of innocent people engaged in summertime leisure activities. Of course, it’s Mother Jones. See if you can even work your way through this:
Both the campaigns and some of their respective third-party allies have asked networks to pull negative advertisements from television in the state. No one wants to make a scene at a funeral.
There’s something quite political about that, though. After all, the reason the campaigns are behaving this way is not just because of decorum, but because a breach of decorum would exact a political cost. Politics are an inevitable part of a collective national trauma, which, for better or for worse, is how America treats incidents like this one. It’s not only appropriate to ask how we got here—it would be irresponsible not to. We frequently treat politics as a team sport, but it isn’t one. Trying to avoid politics trivializes politics, which is the means by which we make collective decisions as a society. A discussion about policies that could prevent future tragedies like this couldn’t be more appropriate.
Seriously. “Politics are an inevitable part of a collective national trauma.” What the hell does that even mean?
And what exactly is wrong with showing a little class and mourning together before we jump into “the discussion” that we all know is going to happen? Ignoring the absence of class, yesterday the left played its hand and so must defend “the instant discussion that must happen”, because, well that’s what happened.
My problem with gun control is multi-layered. I value the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe evil people exist. But most importantly, gun control will not achieve peace or lessen gun crime. To wit: The shooting was a crime perpetrated by a calculating, deliberate, craven, evil human who knew exactly what he was doing.
The theater was a micro experiment in gun control. The theater is a posted “No Gun Zone.” Any concealed weapon permit holder entering would be breaking the law to enter with their firearm. As a result, the law abiding went to the theater playing by the rules. Meanwhile, evil criminal walked into and violated the posted “No Gun Zone” well-armed and knowing he would meet no resistance. He gunned down innocent children, women and men, injured many dozens, including an infant in an instant that destroyed and irrevocably damaged hundreds of lives.
The theater’s anti-gun law was meaningless. As, apparently, are our society’s “anti-murder” laws. Murder has been illegal for… well, practically speaking, forever. Adding another law that takes freedoms away from law abiding citizens will do nothing to deter the evil people who are ignoring law in the first place. Criminals are criminal. This isn’t brain surgery.
Motor vehicles kill 90 people in the US every day. In 2010 the death toll was over 33,000 Americans. Why is no one pushing to outlaw cars? A ludicrous example, you say? Perhaps. But the point is that the anti-gun lobby isn’t interested in saving lives. This is a critical point because it begs the question, what do they want? What is the end game? I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if they’re not interested in saving and protecting life, and we all agree that criminals are criminals, why would they feel so strongly that Americans shouldn’t have the right to defend themselves, their families, their property and their community?