New gun control requests are being generated by the Uvalde massacre in Texas. As is par for the course in these situations, political posturing takes center stage, and any discussion of who the shooter was, why he did what he did, and what actually might have prevented him from doing it is pushed aside for vast generalities and nods toward unrelated “solutions.”
For example, universal background checks. This policy is currently the leading recommendation by Democrats, their media allies and other Democrats. Problem? Background checks were passed by the Uvalde shooter. What about the mandatory waiting period, another popular proposal? Well, the shooter waited over a week before even picking up the rifles he bought, meaning he’d have been outside of pretty much any waiting-period window (most are three to seven days). Does the idea that he would be happier if he waited a week to buy the rifles he wanted change his mind?
Republicans in Washington seem to be beginning to buckle under the weight of the pressure, even though it is mostly irrational. Per Axios, a non-insignificant number of GOP senators are lining up to “compromise” on gun control.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that there are “many more Republicans willing to talk” about gun control legislation following the Uvalde mass shooting last week than he’s seen in the last 10 years.
News: “Every single time after one of these mass shootings, there’s talks in Washington and they never succeed,” Murphy said. “But there are more Republicans interested in talking about finding a path forward this time than I have ever seen” since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Murphy is the same terrible human being who rushed to essentially accuse Republicans of wanting to murder children in the immediate aftermath of the shooting in Uvalde, getting on his hands and knees to “beg” for the passage of gun control legislation. Again, nowhere in Murphy’s plea is a willingness to actually discuss what legislation would be effective or not. Rather, we must simply “do something” even if that something would have had no tangible effect on the most recent or past mass shootings.
As to where exactly Republicans are looking to compromise, here’s what Murphy had to say.
“But what we’re talking about is not insignificant,” Murphy said. “Inside this room, we’re talking about red flag laws we’re talking about strengthening, expanding the background check system, if not universal background checks.”…
…”We’re talking about safe storage, and yes, we’re also talking about mental health resources and more security dollars for schools. A package that, really in the end, could have a significant downward pressure on gun violence in this country.”
Some of these things are really good. There should be more school security. As I shared in my critique of the criticism of Ted Cruz on that subject, my children’s school has a single-entry set up with a magnetic door. It does not feel like a prison to me, and it is simple security precautions that I have never witnessed any children notice.
Mental health resources are also good in theory, but simply throwing money at the problem isn’t a solution to anything. Are Democrats going to allow forced committals of objectively mentally ill individuals, something that wouldn’t just affect possible mass shooters, but the violent homeless encampments that dot blue cities across the nation? Somehow, I doubt it.
Uvalde’s shooter was known to have been cutting his face and killing cats. He also had domestic disputes with his mother. Another report said that he had made death threats to someone online. CPS had to take a child out of a home, as he was younger than the victim, and place them in an institution. But nothing happened. If that’s not what Democrats and Republicans mean by mental health resources, it’s not going to be effective.
Despite the possibility of a compromise being reached, Democrats cannot be trusted to make a deal on something which directly violates Americans’ rights. Murphy mentioned universal background checks. This would, again, have failed to stop this shooter, like nearly all others before him. Now, you might be saying to yourself, “we already have background checks,” and you’d be correct. In fact, I can’t think of a single mass shooting (i.e. high-profile, school shootings, etc.) Privately purchased guns can be avoided an FFL background check. Nearly all shooters pass background checks or take guns from their family.
The purpose of universal background checks, however, is to establish a federal gun registry. This will allow the government to know who owns the guns, and from where. When you recognize that, it’s easy to understand why Democrats love the idea so much despite its obvious ineffectiveness.
Lastly, it appears “red flag” laws will be the major concession by Republicans going forward. Yet, putting aside the constitutional issues at play (due process), my primary aversion to the idea is simply that they don’t seem to work, at least in regards to mass shooters. New York’s red flag law is very broad. It didn’t stop the Buffalo grocery store shooter just a few weeks ago. It’s almost like trying to see through a microscope and stop an entire army of ants. And while I’ll concede red flag laws might be effective in regards to suicide prevention, that’s not the discussion here, right?
Here’s the thing, though. When whatever red flag laws that get passed fail to stop the next mass shooter, the call to “do something” will only grow louder. And the next “something” will be an even further encroachment. I understand the desire to act in good faith and attempt to take some of the heat off, but Republicans have to understand that the Democrat push for gun confiscation and an “assault weapons” ban will not stop with whatever compromise legislation arises here.
Republicans must now ask the question: Should you give in to the Democrats’ end goal? My answer is yes.
About Post Author
