Gun violence has been in the news quite frequently over the past two years amid a sharp increase in the crime rate in America’s major cities. This troubling trend has also brought about the usual calls for stricter gun control measures coming from Democrats, and their close friends and allies in the activist media. But given that gun control has proven itself to be ineffective, is it possible to find a bipartisan way to curb violent crime?
Tom Knighton, my colleague at Bearing Arms, wrote a piece in which he discussed an article examining whether Republicans and Democrats could come together to develop solutions to gun violence. The Observer-Reporter published a piece suggesting that lawmakers seek out other ways to decrease violent crimes committed using firearms:
It is important that whenever the available funds are directed, those dollars reach the programs with the best track record for “cooling off” potentially deadly circumstances before they reach the point of someone pulling a trigger or resorting to an alternative deadly option.
There are numerous programs with those goals and approaches in existence. Again, the key is to determine which already are achieving good results, and to provide incentives for others to ramp up their effectiveness, to merit additional funding in the future.
The author acknowledged that “[g]un violence is not going to go away,” but noted that “confiscating law-abiding people’s guns is not a workable tactic” for solving the problem.
Even if you believe gun control is the answer–it’s not, but let’s pretend–why wouldn’t you also support measures that may help in a myriad of cases where restricting firearms won’t? Surely no one thinks gun control would stop all violent crime, so why not?
With the debate over guns, all too often we lose sight of trying to do the things we actually can do. Democrats become so focused on gun control that they often ignore pretty much everything else that could possibly be done to combat violence on our streets.
Like most others, I wish it was possible for Republicans and Democrats to put their heads together and form coherent strategies to stop gun violence. Perhaps at one time, this could have happened. But in 2022, it’s a no-go.
The problem is that Democrats lack the will and the ability to address the country’s crime rates. One of the reasons why violent crime has climbed so drastically is because progressives exploited the murder of George Floyd to push ridiculously dangerous policies like defunding the police. They launched a full-on campaign designed to demonize all police officers for the actions of a few, which resulted in a sharp decrease of officers patrolling the streets and apprehending criminals.
Even worse, Democrats have also championed woke district attorneys like San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin who prioritize protecting criminals over safeguarding law-abiding civilians. These folks have dedicated themselves to releasing bad guys shortly after they are arrested in the name of “equity.” However, it is not just nonviolent offenders who are given the soft treatment – it is also violent thugs accused of victimizing everyday Americans.
Despite seeing how destructive their policies are, progressives persist in pushing them on the rest of the public. But even worse, they use the result of their policies as an excuse to make it more difficult for responsible Americans to obtain firearms to defend themselves from the increase in violent activity. The far left is not concerned with decreasing crime, they are concerned with disarming the populace, which is why bipartisanship is impossible. If one side does not wish to decrease gun violence, it is on the other side to do something about it.
Of course, this isn’t to say there are no Democrats who would be willing to create other programs designed to lower the crime rate. There are always exceptions to the rule. But unfortunately, it appears these Democratic unicorns are few and far in between. Most of those on the left would rather make sure you and I can’t carry firearms than ensure that we don’t need them in the first place. As long as this is the case, bipartisanship is about as likely as CNN engaging in actual journalism.