The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.)
Last week, the nation experienced two tragic mass shootings. The first occurred at a gay club in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the other in Chesapeake, Virginia.
These tragedies left the nation saddened and outraged. Both were examples of deranged individuals who felt it necessary to commit these violent acts against others.
Unfortunately, both of these stories have been fading from the spotlight since neither neatly fits the type of narrative progressives typically exploit when atrocities like this occur. The suspect in the shooting at the LGBTQ club in Colorado identifies as non-binary, which means progressives and members of the activist media are having a hard time labeling it as a hate crime. Of course, they still tried, but it’s pretty clear nobody is buying that line.
The individual who carried out the shooting at the Walmart in Chesapeake did so using a pistol, which means this incident is not useful when it comes to trying to ban “assault weapons.” Moreover, the perpetrator was a black man, which means they can’t exploit the tragedy to push a “White Man Bad” narrative.
Nevertheless, they are still attempting to push for more gun control legislation at the federal level. President Joe Biden and other Democrats are hoping to get a measure passed through the lame-duck Congress before those nasty gun-obsessed Republicans take control of the House next year.
CNN and other activist media outlets are trying to use the high number of mass shootings that have occurred this year to make the case for more useless gun laws:
Consider this: There have been at least 607 mass shootings through November 22 this year, defined as one in which at least four people are shot. That’s just short of the 638 mass shootings in the country at this point last year – the worst year on record since the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive began tracking them in 2014. There were a total of 690 mass shootings in 2021.
The United States is likely to soon surpass the total of 610 mass shootings in 2020, with more than a month left of 2022 to go.
The Washington Post’s editorial board published a piece in which they highlighted the two mass shootings, intimating that more gun laws might have prevented these attacks:
In each case, as usually happens, there were warning signs missed — or ignored. The chilling note the Walmart shooter left in his phone railing against his co-workers and claiming his phone was hacked suggests he was a deeply disturbed 31-year-old. And yet, he was able to buy a pistol just hours before he massacred six fellow employees in a break room. In Colorado Springs, a 22-year-old suspect who had been arrested last year for an alleged bomb threat, but never prosecuted, was not prevented from obtaining an AR-15-style weapon and a handgun. It’s eerily similar in the University of Virginia shooting: The 22-year-old suspect had multiple prior run-ins with the law, including a 2021 conviction for possessing a concealed firearm without a license.
Too often these tragedies are written off to individual cases of mental illness. That does not explain why the United States has had more than 600 mass shootings every year since 2020 and why no other country has anything close to this level of gun violence,” the authors added. “We must confront the truth about guns in America and why it is so easy for practically anyone to get them — including some that are weapons of war.
What The Post’s article doesn’t tell you is that both Colorado and Virginia have the type of red flag laws favored by the anti-gunner lobby. But they do correctly point out that in the case of the Colorado shooter, there were warning signs, meaning that the state’s red flag laws should have warranted taking away the alleged shooter’s weapons.
But they didn’t, which is yet another reason why passing more restrictions isn’t going to save lives.
Nevertheless, the anti-gunner crowd insists on targeting law-abiding gun owners rather than focusing on the real problem. New York Times columnist David Brooks, during an appearance on PBS Newshour, argued that a “gigantic culture shift” should take place in the U.S. in which we rethink ideas on privacy and gun ownership in order to reflect a more European way of thinking on these matters.
“That would take a gigantic culture shift in this country. A revamping of the way we think about privacy, a revamping of the way we think about the role government plays in protecting the common good,” he said.
The columnist continued:
“I think it would be something. I think would be good not only to head off shootings, but good to live in a society where we cared more intimately about each other. And I would be willing to give up certain privacies for that to happen. But for many Americans that would just be a massive cultural shift to regard our community and regard our common good in more frankly a European style. I think it would benefit our society in a whole range of areas, but it’s hard to see that kind of culture change to a society that’s been pretty individualistic for a long, long time.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that what Brooks laid out is the ultimate objective of the anti-gun crowd. It is why there is always something missing from their arguments when they are exploiting mass shootings to push gun control: Actual solutions.
Almost none of the proposals they put forth would actually make it more difficult for deranged lunatics to carry out mass shootings. The only thing that would be accomplished is that it could make it harder for responsible citizens to bear arms and defend themselves when necessary. Given that firearms are used far more often to prevent crimes than to commit them, one can imagine how banning certain weapons and making it harder for people to buy them could leave more people vulnerable.
Fortunately, a Republican majority in the House – no matter how slim – will keep the anti-gunners at bay for the moment. It won’t be easy for Democrats to push a radical anti-gun agenda when there are not enough Republicans who will go along with it. But this does not mean they will stop trying – even if they have to do it through executive action.