Sure, ISIS and terrorism "may have played a role" in the Orlando attacks -- concrete proof of which we only have here and here and here and here -- but doesn't Florida's Republican Governor bear some responsibility in all of this? Because guns, obviously:
“My law enforcement sources, though, tell me that while ISIS may have played a role, there were other factors at play that he recently became radicalized. So, again, my question is: Yes, ISIS, terrorism could be to blame for this, but can you accept any responsibility for the gun laws here in Florida? The fact that it is easier to walk out of a gun store in a half hour with an AR-15 that can kill more people faster than a pistol. Yet it’s harder to get a pistol than an AR-15.”
To recap, Pamela Brown generously allows that terrorism "could be" to blame here, before pivoting to grilling a politician about his 'quasi-complicity' or whatever due to state laws pertaining to a gun the killer didn't use. That's not quite as bad as Anderson Cooper's activist line of inquiry, if you can call it that, with another Florida official earlier this week, but it's close. To be clear, relatively lax gun laws are just as responsible for the Orlando jihadists' actions as California's relatively tight gun laws were for the San Bernardino terrorists' spree -- and as France's sweepingly restrictive gun laws were for the Paris massacre. That doesn't mean that it's unreasonable to question why some state laws make it harder to buy a handgun than to buy a AR-15-style rifle (although handguns are used in many, many more gun deaths than rifles -- most of which are suicides). Sure, let's debate that. It's also fine to debate whether it's appropriate or legal to deprive US citizens of their constitutional rights based on secret, error-riddled lists compiled via suspicion.
But the fact that Brown's question breezes past the alleged (!) terrorism angle to fixate on the tool used by this terrorist (or not used, in this case) demonstrates both an endemic unseriousness among many in the media class, as well as the Left's ability to drive narratives. Some liberals have objected to my satire piece from this morning on the basis that conservatives engage in demagoguery and push tendentious, self-serving spin in support of an agenda. Absolutely true. As we explain in End of Discussion, what makes the Left's silencing and bullying tactics more dangerous is the inherent amplification and legitimization advantages liberals enjoy as a result of dominating most of America's cultural institutions. Case in point:
Huh. Weird. Democrats blaming Republicans for Orlando didn't make the broadcast newscasts. They spent combined 3:00 on Sen. McCain, tho.— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 17, 2016
McCain blaming Obama's ISIS policy for Omar Mateen's ideology-driven slaughter is the opposite side of this coin. Like the gun control debate, the administration's foreign policy and intelligence manipulation is a tertiary factor worth discussing, but it's not "responsible" for evil perpetrated by killers. Many on the Left, including grandstanding Senators and hyper-partisan editorial boards, have busied themselves by laying blame for Orlando at the feet of Christian conservatives and the NRA (the terrorist was, in fact, an Islamist Democrat and non-NRA member). In response, the press has more or less shrugged. But when one Republican offered an equally wrong-headed assignment of blame, then quickly backtracked, news consumers were treated to a five-alarm civility fire up and down the dial. I'll leave you with this:
Assault weapons aren’t for hunting–If you need an AK-47 to hunt a deer you ought to stick to fishing— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) June 15, 2016
Orlando jihadist didn't use an AK-47. Automatic AK-47's are illegal. And please cite 2nd amend's "hunting" clause. https://t.co/j3j8gPLip5— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 17, 2016