Gun Prohibitionists’ ‘Solutions’ Won’t Make a Difference…And They’re Just Fine With That

do something gun control protest

Courtesy Twitter

The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com.

Same feces, different day. After the school shooting in Santa Clarita, all the same eminences of the civilian disarmament industry spouted all of the same outrage at the lack of common sense “gun safety” measures.

All of the same voices were raised touting all of the same actions that simply must be taken as a moral imperative to DO SOMETHING.

Never mind that not a single one of the gun prohibitionists’ prescriptions would have done a single thing to stop the Saugus High School shooter or to prevent virtually any other mass shooting that’s taken place.

But in a time of historically low “gun violence” in this country — there really isn’t an epidemic as the Democrats and the media would have you believe — portraying the problem as more dire than it is is really their only option.

It’s illegal for a teen to walk around with a handgun anywhere in the United States. It’s illegal for a California teen to go to Alabama or Arizona or Virginia to buy a gun. It’s illegal for any teen to purchase a gun through the mail or at a gun show or be gifted one from his dear uncle. It is illegal for parents to allow their kids to procure their firearms. No state or federal regulation now being championed by Senate Democrats would have stopped this teen, which is the case for the vast majority of mass shootings.

Murphy knows this. Kamala Harris and all the others leading Democrats who try to emotionally manipulate Americans to support their restrictions know this. All those who smear the NRA as a terrorist organization know this. All those who claim that Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands for failing to convene the Senate [to] pass a Democratic bill that has absolutely nothing remotely to do with the Santa Clarita shooting know this.

– David Harsanyi in Nothing Democrats Are Proposing in Washington Will Stop Mass Shootings in California

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    By the time you’re not afraid of being charged with murder what difference do virtually any other laws make? It’s not like people will go “I’m going to go on a shooting spree, drat I can’t acquire high capacity magazines. I’d better sit this one out.”

  2. It has well-been established that they dfo not want solutions.

    Remember back in 2012 when some gangbanger killed a bunch of kids at a school in Connecticut?

    http://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives

    Many people viewed inner-city shootings as an intractable problem. But for two years, McBride had been spreading awareness about Ceasefire, a nearly two-decades-old strategy that had upended how police departments dealt with gang violence. Under Ceasefire, police teamed up with community leaders to identify the young men most at risk of shooting someone or being shot, talked to them directly about the risks they faced, offered them support, and promised a tough crackdown on the groups that continued shooting. In Boston, the city that developed Ceasefire, the average monthly number of youth homicides dropped by 63 percent in the two years after it was launched. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “what works” website for crime policy had a green check mark next to Ceasefire, labeling it “effective” — the highest rating and one few programs received.

    Avoiding that fact has consequences. Twenty years of government-funded research has shown there are several promising strategies to prevent murders of black men, including Ceasefire. They don’t require passing new gun laws, or an epic fight with the National Rifle Association. What they need — and often struggle to get — is political support and a bit of money.

    Later, other ministers who worked with McBride would get an even blunter assessment from a White House staffer: There was no political will in the country to address inner-city violence.

    This was total bullshit. In the wake of that shooting in Connecticut, Operation Ceasefire would have been an easy sell.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Thanks for the link to this article. I’ve never believed that the Democrats, the Liberals, the Left, want to stop what they call “gun violence”. It is simply a tool used to disarm the greater civilian population.

      White liberals need as many dead blacks as possible to get the numbers up to use as a reason for their gun control schemes. And if white children are murdered in the process that’s ok to them. Because they will use the whites and their faces. And their pictures and their family members. But they will not use the pictures and family members of black children who have been killed for decades now.

      The group Black Guns Matter has pretty much neutralized the use of these people by white gun-control groups.

      Liberals, gun owners, or not , will not want to talk about the breakdown of the black family. Because then that have to talk about their support of the Welfare Industrial Complex. And their support of replacing the black father and his guns with a welfare check and the guns of a big city police department.

  3. avatar OBOB says:

    The one thing about gun laws – There’s no shortage of so called “experts” eager to improve them, AKA “DO SOMETHING!” but very few actually know what the current laws are. “blah blah blah, we must do better. Yadda yadda yadda, after all, it’s for the children!”.

    1. I have dealt with the dishonesty and invincible ignorance of the anti-gun cult for twenty years, and I believe Chris has done so for even longer.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Invincible ignorance…

        That pretty well sums it up. The anti-gun camp is populated almost entirely by people who don’t know anything about the subject, don’t want to know, and LOVE the fact that they know nothing useful about it.

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    It’s about control and power,it’s not about criminals and crime and it’s prevention.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Exactly. It’s called “ruling thru fear”. In order to do that the wannabe “Saviors”, must have something to save us from – a dragon they can slay. If there isn’t a volunteer dragon handy, they invent one. In this case, the invented dragon is a semiautomatic weapon.

  5. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    DO SOMETHING!

    OK, I just farted. Don’t ever say I didn’t ‘do something’.

    1. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

      You’re living up to your name, Gov… 😉

      1. avatar Dave G. says:

        @Geoff “Run, Bloomie, run!” PR:
        You took those words right out of my mouth! Not that I mean any disrespect for the Gov., who MUST have a stupendous sense of humor.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      That’s all the Commiecrats do thru their mouths,while calling for the destruction of the Constitution and Republic,just so much hot smelly air.

  6. avatar Dennis says:

    Why, it’s almost like they have an agenda!🤫

  7. avatar Roland says:

    See, this is what bothers me about grabbers the most. It’s not so much that they want us disarmed, but rather that they constantly lie about it. They know their ideas are unpopular, so they resort to euphemisms and perfidy.

    Really, it’s insulting that they think we can’t read them like a book.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    This Japanese boy in Santa Clarita had virtually no “signs” he was a menace. No law would have made a damn bit of difference. I ASSume his deceased daddy’s gat was a low capacity 1911(how many of THOSE are laying hidden in a drawer somewhere?!?)We’ll never know but the good folks in Commiefornia will be f###ed regardless…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      We already are. On the very day the Saugus incident happened, my coworkers were already talking the usual spew about the “evil guns”. Just like the woman in the middle of the photo above, they all want somebody somewhere to “do something”.

  9. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    The same thing happened with the Car Safety movement in the 60’s. Ralph Nader fueled the hysteria by proclaiming that were was “carnage on the highways” when, in fact, deaths per 100k had been steadily declining for decades. The resulting 55mph speed limit increased traffic congestion and caused more accidents.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The 55 mph was also a federal response to lower fuel usage when OPEC raised the prices in 1973. Some cars of that era even had speedometers that peaked at 70 mph.

  10. avatar WI Patriot says:

    It’s all about “feel good” legislation, so THEY can always say, “we tried”…

  11. avatar NORDNEG says:

    This is why the demise of the death penalty in most of the U S is bad news. Start using it within 30 days of being sentenced & either this crap will wind down or the punks won’t repeat again. One reason the state government won’t use it is because they said it was to protect the police from being shot during a arrest, since a lot of people here on this site don’t seem to like cops I would think that would be ok now. & I don’t care about the age of the perps either,,, another bunch of B S,,, do the deed , pay the price.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Remember, with respect to Progressives, their primary/only priorities are feelings, fantasy, and their whimsical notion of virtue. Passing laws which make firearms illegal feels good them and satisfies their whimsical notion of virtue. (Satisfies their idea of virtue because they “did something” and “publicly condemned” firearms.)

    The fact that their efforts do not actually reduce violent crime does not matter to them.

    And note that they reject the fact that their disarmament laws make people vulnerable and increase the number of victims as well as the severity of the injuries to the victims. Rather, they blame the criminals as entirely responsible for the victims of violent crime.

  13. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    When they carry signs that read “Do Something” there should be a counter of “Death To Gangs”.

  14. avatar American Patriot says:

    Calif. didn’t become a Socialist State because of Intelligent people!!!!

    1. avatar Ing says:

      You’d be surprised at the idiotic positions that otherwise intelligent people can think themselves into. There are some things so ridiculous that it takes years of practice at a university to believe in them.

  15. avatar Ark says:

    Looks like a diverse crowd of middle aged white Karens.

  16. avatar Brewski says:

    I miss the days before the internet when stupidity was controlled largely by proximal distance from stupid people so that the dumb couldn’t affect the world at large.

    Stupidity is the zombie apocalypse we were afraid of but in digital form and it’s infected millions.

  17. avatar Hans says:

    They are gun racist.

  18. All of these mass shootings wouldn’t be happening if We The People were all armed as Constitutionally intended. And we returned to teaching our children firearms training as we used to do all the way into last century. All of the blame for these shootings can be laid at the feet of the democratic party. As they are the direct cause of all of our current woes, and that is provable fact.

  19. avatar Craig in IA says:

    “Gun Prohibitionists’ ‘Solutions’ Won’t Make a Difference…And They’re Just Fine With That”

    Like hell- crime nearly always goes much higher when the populace is disarmed. Name your big Krapistan city or leftist-run state. No proof or study needed.

  20. avatar Sam Hill says:

    I am the fortunate one. No longer do I have to drive through the granola stàte. I think the problem is that no matter where you enter, it’s always brown, shit Brindle brown, that has to affect the outlook on life, on top of that, the cities stink so bad it’s hard to breathe and they recommend staying indoors. I don’t know if thinking the people out there are either fruits, or, nuts, or who isn’t are flakes, makes me a racist or not, but you can look me in the eye see if anyone in there gives damn. There are forty-nine other states that aren’t quite as screwed up. Instead of bitching about the laws there I’d pick one and relocate. Ny. Ny. would not be on my picking list either.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email