See how that works? Gun control advocates don’t care about the balance between our constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and society’s collective need to protect its citizens from murderers. If ONE tragedy can be averted by a draconian gun control law then go ahead and ban shit. Modern home defense sporting rifles, high-capacity magazines, silencers, automatic weapons, .50 caliber rifles, whatever. Sure, some otherwise law-abiding citizens will get caught up by a (supposedly) well-intentioned regulation. But that’s a small price to pay to stop a greater horror. It’s not like anyone needs those things. You know; other than the cops. Here’s how that works . . .
First, you find a victim of a tragedy that could have been prevented by the proposed law. Then you exploit—I mean publicize the case in as emotional a way as possible, based on that entirely theoretical prophylactic possibility. Case in point: Crackdown urged on rapid-fire ammo
In a written statement Monday, the receptionist who called 911 from underneath her desk after she was shot in the abdomen during the American Civic Association massacre urged Congress to pass a law banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one used by shooter Jiverly Wong in 2009.
“How many mass shootings will it take for Congress to protect us?” [Shirley] DeLucia [above] said in the statement, her first public comments since the day of the shooting. “The horror of that day haunts me through flashbacks, nightmares and lasting physical effects. I live with it every day and I’ll have to live with it for the rest of my life, but if there’s one thing I can do to prevent future violence it’s to express my fervent support for this common-sense measure.”
Inherent in this statement: the government must protect us. Excuse me, but have you met a Congressperson? Aside from the ones with military experience, I’d fully expect them to greet a life-or-death situation with a Florida School Board-type “let’s talk them to death” response.
And yes, there is one thing that Ms. DeLucia could do to prevent future violence—at least for herself. Carry a gun.
And that, dear readers, is why gun control has come a cropper; the average person understands the desire indeed the need to have and/or carry a gun. Which is also why gun control advocates have resorted by this “death by a thousand cuts” approach. Score enough non-sensical victories and the cumulative effect on gun ownership will be great. At least in theory.
Anyway, note the next step: calling a high capacity magazine ban “common sense.” As we’ve pointed out here numerous times, “common sense” really means “you don’t need to think about this.” Or “pay no attention to the well-meaning man behind the curtain.” Or “I am the great and powerful Oz!” Speaking of which . . .
Step three: get the cops behind it. For yea, verily, it is Binghamton, NY Police Chief Joseph Zikuski who delivered unto us the quote headlining this post, not Ms. DeLucia. Bet you didn’t see THAT one coming.
Zikuski said a federal ban would give police an advantage over criminals. Had Wong not turned the gun on himself, Zikuski said Binghamton police would have been “severely outgunned.”
While the bill would not completely wipe out the clips, Zikuski said it would make it much more difficult to obtain one.
“There would be an aftermarket, there’s no doubt about that,” Zikuski said. “But at least this would make it more difficult to get your hands on them. Perhaps tragedy could be averted if someone were to be arrested by police for having one of these on them.”
OK, time to wrap it up. Easily done. Begin by not reporting any dissenting voices (check) and end by quoting the victim predicting dire consequences if the peeps don’t get behind the new law.
“As a survivor of the horrific shooting in Binghamton, it’s clear to me that the cycle of senseless gun violence will repeat itself without a federal ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines,” she said. “We need to protect the public from these weapons, which serve only to inflict as much carnage as possible.”