Free Markets, Free People

More gun control “cognitive dissonance”

From The Hill, this paragraph concerning the brothers who perpetrated the Boston bombings:

The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws – an issue that was put on the back-burner last week after the Senate blocked the central elements of a gun-control package backed by President Obama.

A) I told you so … I said a few days ago that the defeat of the latest gun control legislation was only a set back and hardly the end of the left’s efforts to further restrict the right to own a firearm.  B) I also told you I feared the aftermath of the bombings.  And here we go.   And finally C) WTF?

It is clear that Massachusetts’ very strict gun control laws has no effect here. None.  Absolutely zero.  How many times and in how many ways must we say that scofflaws don’t obey laws?  How often does the “we ought to pass a law” crowd who think legislation and restriction is the answer to everything have to see that their way is a failure before they quit trying to take our freedoms away?

Gun control laws don’t work.  If they did, there’d be no criminals running around with “illegal” guns, would there?  There’d be no source of those guns if those laws worked.  But, in fact, criminals almost exclusively obtain “illegal” guns and/or completely ignore any gun control legislation.  Look at Chicago for heaven sake.  Some of the most restrictive gun control laws in America and criminals have all but made it a free-fire zone.

When will the left understand that the problem isn’t guns, it’s criminals?  How often does it have to be pointed out to them that criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws?  How will more legislation suddenly stop (or even deter) two determined people, like the Boston bombers, from illegally obtaining guns?  Harsher penalties?  Obviously they were willing to take the risk.  And that seems to be the case with all the other criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes.

The only people that will be deterred and restricted by new gun control legislation are the law abiding.  And watch out for this – at the end of this road (or slippery slope if you prefer) is the rationalization that the only way to “control gun violence” is to completely outlaw guns.  It is the logical end of the left’s push for more and more restrictive gun legislation.  And, as they often do, they’re willing to spend the time, exploit and politicize tragedies and achieve incremental success in taking guns away.  It’s no different than ObamaCare.  That’s not the end of anything.  It is the first grab.  The end state, if you are a student of the left’s actions at all, is fully government run single-payer health care.  ObamaCare is just the beginning.  Once it fails, because government has, whether on purpose or inadvertently designed it to fail, government will blame “the market” and claim it is the solution.

It’s an old pattern being repeated, in a slightly different way, in the gun control saga.  One only has to harken to the era of prohibition (or not even that far back … how about drug laws?) to know that restrictive legislation doesn’t work, has never worked and will never work.

Violence and criminal behavior are the problems.  Passing all the laws in the world won’t change that.  As usual, government chooses to treat the symptoms and go after a tool rather than the actual problem.

If and when they finally find a way to ban all guns, run gun manufacturers out of the country and put more untold thousands of citizens in jail, they’ll be shocked, shocked I tell you, when gun violence continues and violence in general rises.

See the UK and Australia for case studies.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

47 Responses to More gun control “cognitive dissonance”

  • So what’s your solution?  Put another 2 million people in prison, where they learn to be better criminals.  Where do we get the money to build twice as many prisons?  Or do we continue to over-crowd the already over-crowded prison conditions which currently necessitates early release of prisons?  Instead of using the UK and Australia as examples, how the social systems of France and Germany—since social systems are the primary molders of behavior.

    • You mean France with it’s nightly riots of “youths”?

      • Like all those “student” riots they had in Viet Nam ?

      • You don’t think there’s a difference between violent crime and demonstration (riots, as you call them) against the government?

    • Everybody know how when the rocket scientists at NASA badly design a space shuttle or Mars lander, then when they eventually fail, they rewrite the laws of physics.
      This is the same thing that our politicians do.  When their laws are written poorly (“you have to pass the law to find out what’s in the law”), the write more badly designed laws.

      • Yes. The left starts with the following axiomatic assumption:

        “The right law will accomplish whatever we want it to accomplish.”

        Therefore, if the current law isn’t accomplishing the purpose, the answer is always another law. The possibility that no law will ever do what they want, because the world is just too complex and people too varied and unpredictable, simply never occurs to them as a possibility, because they started with the assumption that the right law would work.

        This is one of the side-effects of a quasi-religious faith in government. A typical leftist believes in his heart that government can accomplish any societal goal with the right law, and that people are untrustworthy, incompetent, and unable to run their own affairs so that societal goals can never be accomplished by leaving things up to them. (“People”, of course, doesn’t include self-proclaimed elites, who are not only fit in their minds to run their own lives, but also so smart that they deserve to run ours.)

        • Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. — Albert Einstein

        • “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand  real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience;  that would take fire from men because it burns, and water  because one may drown in it. . . . The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm  those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit  crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage  to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most  important of the code, will respect the less important and  arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity,  and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to liberty. . . and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the  guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse  for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve  rather to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an  unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an  armed man. . . .” — Cesare Beccaria, Essay on Crime and Punishment, 1764; quoted in The Commonplace Book of T. Jefferson, Ed. 4

      • It’s was never about laws or inducing law-abiding behavior. It’s about Total Government, the systematic dismantling of the Republic, then ultimately Serfdom.
        We have a hundred pages of laws regulating the sale of rutabagas in a farmers market, laws a-plenty we have.
        It is Morality we have in short supply, last time I checked you couldn’t beat humanity into the public with a policeman’s nightstick or a judges gavel.
        It starts with language. Let’s start with calling radical Islam for what it is and go from there.

    • I love how tad sets up his own cute and cuddly little argument so that he can pretend it is yours. Then he rips all the stuffing out of it and considers himself the winner.
      Bless tad’s little heart. Where would the world be without people like him?

    • What?   what does putting people in prison have to do with this?   who are these 2 million people you’re babbling about?
      Grow the F up Tad, do laws against murder stop murder?   The only thing gun laws will do is describe the punishment we’re going to hand out in detail instead of leaving it up to a judge on the spot.
      There are still murders despite the number of laws against murder, and there will still be guns used to commit murders even if Harry the right wing religious anti-tax Tea Party abortion hating gay bashing European male (did I miss any of the left’s predictions for who committed the bombings?) has to make it out of gas pipe in his shop.  Projectile weapons are more effective, Urgh the caveman figured that out when he beaned his first rabbit with a rock.  The genie is out of the bottle, it was a long time ago.
      This it the adult world, where every problem really CAN’T be solved by a(nother) freaking law, or another ban (you’d think the nanny morons would have learned after prohibition, or the war on drugs, but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo).

      • We need to make them US citizens, to see if they are terrorists — Nancy’s Pelosi’s brain

    • You think we put too many people in prison, yet you want to pass laws that will make more Americans felons.

      Also, stop looking at foreign countries as an example. The key to low crime is having a well behaved culture. You won’t have that when you let in more illegals from third world countries.

    • “Where do we get the money to build twice as many prisons?”

      Ben Bernanke.

      Is this a trick question?

  • What’s this “authorized to own firearms” sh*t?  The Constitution “authorizes” every citizen to own a firearm. Language is important… in the meantime, there were already laws, very freaking restrictive laws in place, yet they still managed to get weapons. But the solution is to pass even more restrictive laws???  It was a very instructive scene last week, an entire city told to cower in fear behind their doors while ONE MAN was on the loose. And the cops still couldn’t find him. Cower in fear while the cops can’t find the guy, cower in fear while the cops take 20 minutes to respond to Newtown, cower in fear, cower in fear, cower in fear. Notice a pattern here?

    • Only one of them was a citizen.

    • Yeah, where a guy violating their orders to stay inside was instrumental in apprehending the little bastard.

    • The Constitution does not authorize us to own firearms. We always had that right. The 2nd Amendment says that the govt cannot infringe upon that right. The Constitution is set up to prevent the govt from attempting to remove our natural rights, first and foremost of which is self-defense.

  • If Massachusetts only had a law to prohibit detonation of explosives in crowded locations, this whole atrocity could have been prevented.  The brothers–cognizant of the importance of obeying even those laws with which one doesn’t agree–would have found a more constructive way of expressing their displeasure with modern American civil society.
    THANK YOU!  THANK YOU!  I’ll be doing two shows per night til Thursday!  Remember to tip your waitress!

  • From Redstate:
    Substitute the Tea Party for Islam, and liberals would be hitting the floor in a swoon of ecstasy today, their every fantasy about the adversaries of Big Government joyously fulfilled. The Internet would groan beneath the weight of their blog posts and op-eds. And it’s not hard to imagine various officials of the Obama Administration egging them on, linking the bombers to everything from the defeat of gun-control legislation to sequestration.
    Well, the folks at Kos started asking yesterday:
    If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
    Well, just because my fly isn’t down doesn’t mean that somebody hasn’t set my hair on fire.

    • I love that ‘if you’re not doing anything wrong’ argument.   Just let me check your house out, watch what you’re doing 24 hours a day, make sure you’re eating what you should, not talking like you shouldn’t, not showing any signs of thinking bad thoughts.  Just let me make sure you’re existing up to my standards and doing what I decide is right for you.
      The difference will be your prison won’t have bars and walls, but it’ll for damn sure have guards.  If it wasn’t a violation of rights I believe in I’d suggest we subject some of these people to their own suggestions by way of making the point.
      Proving you really can’t legislate or explain against stupid.

      • Eh. They will pass a bunch of laws that make many people felons, and it is up to the people to figure out that this is going on and what to do about it. Some will have no clue and will be in full violation without realizing it. And the laws will be enforced, like any other.

        A guy brought in an illegal AK to sell at the Del Mar gunshow. He didn’t seem to know it was illegal. Walked right in with it. The Deputies that are always there were going to confiscate it and let him go on his way, but there was a guy from CA DOJ and I think they ended up taking the guy off in handcuffs.

      • I guess I needed to include more context.  Kos was commenting their perceived view that the Right was getting all defensive on the inclination of the bombers, since there was a chorus of MSM hoping that they would be “white,” and even better … a “Tea Partier.”

  • The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws

    Right. The fact that the gun laws failed means we need more of them.

    What would the answer be if they were authorized? Oh, yeah, it would be the same answer.

    It would be interesting to see what they would come up with if it turned out they got the M4 via Fast and Furious.

  • Perhaps as difference approach will work …

    Right-wing rocker Ted Nugent has taken to his column to call for the public hanging of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the now-charged Boston Marathon bombers.
    The column, titled “Time To Stretch Neck Of Jihadist Punk,” was posted on the right wing website WND over the weekend. Stressing the need for quick justice, he (mostly) avoided his frequent talking points (fighting against gun control, criticizing Democrats and President Obama).

  • Just when you thought your brain had melted onto the ground …

    “The … analysis that the Boston attacks are a setback for immigration reform appears wrongheaded, as we learn more about the story. The fault here wasn’t our immigration system, since the suspects immigrated legally a decade ago as kids and apparently were radicalized here. If anything, the fault lies with our society and domestic intelligence services. Given the facts, the events in Boston seem unlikely to stoke nativist sentiments that may derail immigration reform. To the contrary, to the extent it renews fears of terrorism, it will strengthen the case for reform, since the bipartisan proposal fixes major gaps in our national security posture (by implementing a visa-exit system, registering and background-checking undocumented immigrants, gaining 100% awareness of our southern border, etc.). ”

    • The problem is that they will continue to push their agenda as the solution to whatever problem we face.

  • Well sure the left is going to try to politicize this.   Never let a good tragedy go to waste.  After all the Newtown Shooting happened in a state that still had an assault weapons ban.  Which means the AWB either didn’t stop Adam Lanza from getting an assault weapon or the AR-15 variant he used wasn’t an assault weapon in the first place.  But the left didn’t let those facts stop them then.

  • On April 15, the day the Tsarnaevs set off the pressure cooker bombs on Boylston Street, there were 40 bombings and shootings across Iraq that took the lives of 75 and wounded 350. No one in the outside world knows the names of those who set off these bombs, and no one cares. And Baghdad was not locked down.

    How, then, when these brothers are now as well-known as Timothy McVeigh, if not Osama bin Laden, and they committed an atrocity that mesmerized America for a week, and they forced a lockdown of one of our greatest cities, can it be said that they failed – as terrorists?

  • I hate to say this, but while walking the dog, some guy drove by in his SUV with the windows painted saying “Hide your guns, prepare for the next civil war.”
    10 years ago I would have laughed. Now, it startled me in a negative way. Not against the driver, but the fact that he dared to say that out loud, so to speak.
    Also, it was not some beat up old SUV owned by an insane person. This is Northern California, where for every 1 right winger who admits it, probably 100 are behind the blades of grass.

    • So complete the all but fulfilled secession to create the state of Jefferson.  Then ignore everything that idiot wrote except his Revolutionary War rhetoric–as opposed to the French one he later embraced while defending and reinforcing slavery at his home

    • I think a lot of people are looking at what is going on and wondering when the shooting will start.

  • Heh, they’ve got bigger problems since they took the little bastard alive –
    Can you waterboard a citizen under arrest by domestic police authority to find his terror links?  (one hopes not….isn’t there one of those stinky inconvenient amendments that prevents that?)
    Can you send that citizen to GITMO?
    Then there’s the matter of the public trial of the little perpetrator.  Won’t THAT be interesting.  Will the prosecution try to avoid issues that are inconvenient and embarrassing to the FBI/DHS/Government/White House?
    And it looks like their mission was a success, no?  Terror certainly had hold of Boston last week, and shook it like a terrier with a rat.

  • “We need to take some of your freedom to protect you from terrorists!”
    “Why do we need to be protected from terrorists?”
    “Because they want to take away your freedom!”

  • Here is another example from the Washington Post:

    The Senate’s defeat of a package of popular proposals aimed at curbing gun violence last week seemed certain to foment public outrage at out-of-touch politicians who don’t listen to their constituents.

    Who did this outrage seem certain to?
    Washington Post source: