Yep.
Instead this is just another issue where the hysteria on the right is off the charts.
To be fair, I believe that it cuts both ways. I wouldn't disagree that there is an element of hysteria on the right. But it seems that there is also an element of political grandstanding on the left. These mass shootings (no matter what type of weapon is used) are serious and they do need to be addressed. No argument from me there. But a
very large percentage of firearms related deaths (and violent crime in general) in the U.S. are committed by nickel & dime, career criminals, who are already prohibited from owning firearms by federal law.
As I've said on here many times, I'm an NRA Life Member and have been for decades. I don't apologize for that. It was a decision that I made many years ago. And although I don't follow Wayne LaPierre's directives and opinions in lockstep (I don't agree with myself more than 50% of the time
), I do agree that a very meaningful reduction in firearms related deaths could be attained if state and federal law enforcement (and the judicial system) would
vigorously enforce existing firearms laws. I'm rather frustrated and confused that federal prosecutors have declined to really go after organized gangs and various street criminals who get caught with firearms or get caught trafficking in drugs and guns. Also, the banks that have been caught laundering money for these operations only have to pay a fine, while no one goes to jail. That's been just as true under Obama as Bush. And considering that Chicago has such a violent crime problem, and that's been Obama's home base for much of his political life, I find that rather shocking.
IMO, Omar Mateen, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, the San Bernardino Shooters and other mass shootings, while most certainly horrible and tragic, are actually statistical outliers. I don't mean to be flippant, but they're largely
man bites dog stories. While I don't oppose efforts to make weapons harder to get for suspected terrorists and people with mental issues, quite often, they haven't been convicted of a crime. So that makes it rather difficult to put civil restrictions on them, or so I would think. But now, the thousands that are killed or injured by convicted criminals each year, they have restrictions already in place. I've just not heard anyone (in political power anyway) present a rational plan for dealing with this social menace. And let's face it, dealing with that rather small population would have an outsized result to the good. The proposal to pass laws that will affect a massive population, when they can't/won't enforce laws that (already) affect a rather small population, just doesn't seem very logical or rational in my view. It strikes me as a feel-good measure that won't accomplish much... sort of like the so called Assault Weapons Ban from the 90's that focused on the superficial appearance of certain weapons.
But maybe some good ideas can be found somewhere in the middle.
Did you get this article from Facebook?
