VICTOR JOECKS: Mass shootings shouldn’t be politicized in gun control quest
Hastily politicizing shootings for political gain is distasteful and needs to stop.
On Monday, a gunman killed 10 people in a Colorado grocery store. The tragedy came on the heels of a gunman last week killing eight people in an Atlanta shooting spree. Both events were outrageous and senseless.
As so often happens, the horror of a mass shooting led to reflexive calls for gun control. “We don’t know all the details yet, but we do know our country has a horrific problem with gun violence,” Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper tweeted on Monday. “We need federal action. Now.”
Translated: He doesn’t know what happened, but he’s sure it’s justification for gun control measures he already supports. Talk about shameless. Unfortunately, he was far from alone.
On Tuesday, President Joe Biden pushed several proposals, including a ban on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines. That wasn’t a carefully tailored response to this specific tragedy. He campaigned on those two items last year.
There’s a reason Democrats use high-profile tragedies to push gun control. No doubt, many sincerely believe their plans will help. But they also need the emotion of the moment to cover the flaws in their plans.
The biggest one is simple. If a person is willing to murder numerous people, how will another law stop him?
The term “assault” weapons doesn’t have a uniform definition. Assume Biden wants to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Assume also such a ban would pass constitutional muster, which it doesn’t. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates there are 20 million modern sporting rifles in the country and more than 400 million firearms in total.
Two problems should jump out. A ban on semi-automatic rifles would do little to stop someone from obtaining one when so many are already in circulation. And that’s to say nothing about the black market. Also, someone could still purchase a handgun. According to 2019 FBI data, a murderer who used a firearm was more than 17 times more likely to use a handgun than a rifle. That excludes murders where the type of firearm wasn’t reported.
But this problem doesn’t just involve calls for gun control. After the Atlanta shootings, many Democrats pushed the narrative that anti-Asian sentiment motivated the shooter. As of this writing, there isn’t evidence the attack was racially motivated. That didn’t stop Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., from declaring the shooting was the “result” of former President Donald Trump using terms such as “China virus.”
To see the problem with this approach, consider the Colorado shooter, who appears to have been a Muslim born in Syria. Imagine the left’s reaction if Republicans claimed this was proof of the inherent dangers of Islam or why the United States should restrict Muslim immigration from Syria.
There’s plenty of time after mass shootings to debate gun control or underlying causes. But those discussions will be more productive if they occur after, not before, the facts come out.
Contact vjoecks@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4698. Follow @victorjoecks on Twitter.