Boston Globe: It's Time To Consider Gun Confiscation

Matt Vespa
|
Posted: Nov 14, 2017 4:35 PM
Boston Globe: It's Time To Consider Gun Confiscation

Well, if there’s one thing we can say about this Boston Globe op-ed, it’s honest. I don’t mean honest regarding facts or anything, but honest in detailing what gun control advocates really, really want: confiscation. In light of the recent mass shootings in Texas and Las Vegas, the usual characters stepped out in front. The National Rifle Association is evil, we need more background checks, and it’s the Republicans’ fault. The rancor lasted a few weeks, but as in every case, we return to reality: guns are here to stay. Guns are part of American culture. And no new gun control laws are going to get passed. Period. Why? There’s no need. In fact, none of the proposals the anti-Gun Left pushes would stop any future mass shootings. None. Background checks? Stephen Paddock, who committed the brutal shooting in Las Vegas passed all of his background checks, had zero run-ins with the law, and no history of mental illness.  Devin Kelley, an Air Force veteran who served a year in jail for domestic violence, should have been barred from owning guns after his conviction. He was court martialed in 2012 for beating his wife and stepson, the latter of which suffered a fractured skull. In 2014, he was given a bad-conduct discharge. How did he get weapons? The Air Force did not forward his criminal record to the FBI to be added into the NICS system. This shooting could have been prevented. Also, it was an NRA member who stopped the carnage from being even more widespread. Stephen Willeford lived near the church where Kelley opened fire and was made aware of the attack by his daughter. He ran barefoot across the street and engaged Kelley with his AR-15 rifle.

Texas was a failure of government. With Las Vegas, sadly, there is nothing that could have been done. So, what does the Globe suggest? Well, confiscate all the guns of course:

“The time is now,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, “for Congress to shed its cowardly cover and do something.”

Trouble is, it’s not clear the “something” Democrats typically demand would make a real dent in the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. Congress can ban assault weapons, but they account for just a tiny sliver of the country’s 33,000 annual firearm deaths. And tighter background checks will do nothing to cut down on the 310 million guns already in circulation.

In other words, the proposals aren’t just difficult to enact in the current political climate; their practical effects would also be quite limited. On occasion, though, leading Democrats will make oblique reference to a more sweeping policy change: seizing a huge number of weapons from law-abiding citizens.

At a New Hampshire forum in the fall of 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of an Australian gun buyback program that collected more than 650,000 weapons — a buyback that, she neglected to mention, was compulsory.

[…]

Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

Well, for starters, thanks for confirming that Australian-style gun control is, indeed, gun confiscation. Second, thanks for also recognizing why such policies can work in Australia, which also shows why they can’t here. First, we have a constitutional right to own firearms. Second, and this is quite obvious, we’re not bloody Australia. Mass shootings were already rare in the land Down Under, so the data that the Left loves to peddle has little to no value. Moreover, there hasn’t been a drop in gun-related crime that could point to the buyback and firearms bans as being the root cause. A former FiveThirtyEight writer laid this out post-Vegas, where she said the data just doesn’t support the effectiveness of any gun control measure. She’s a gun control supporter and admits that every position she supported was gutted when presented with the numbers. The data-crunching site itself noted that to see gun policy solely through the lens of mass shootings is bound to produce awful results.

Liberals hate guns. They hate people who own them, but they haven’t figured out a way to exploit gun tragedies that can yield political dividends. Moreover, they want confiscation. They want a ban, but can’t say that because then the whole movement gets nuked. So, thanks to the Globe for just putting it out there. Granted, we knew expanded background checks were not the end goal at all. If you give a liberal an inch, they take several hundred miles. There will probably be talk of a renewed assault weapons ban across the country. Democrats are already pushing another one. We had one pass back in 1994 and it had zero effect in reducing crime. Again, props to the Globe for being honest, but you’re wrong like the rest of them.

Addendum: The 33,000 figure is inflated by suicides. While tragic, they're not the same as the violence liberals exploit to push their agenda. I think there's definitely areas where both sides can find common ground to prevent the number of suicides by firearm, but we know how quickly that hope falls to pieces in the aftermath of a shooting.