We have now reached the point where the political outrage machine gets cranked up to eleven and spleen-venting takes the place of grief and shock. Dutifully, QuestLove tweeted out every Republican Representative and Senator who expressed condolence to the Vegas victims replete with the amount of money the NRA donated to their campaigns. (Strangely, he did not feel the need to single out Democrats thusly). Jimmy Kimmel came on your TV, spooled up some tears, and emotionally emoted that Something! must be done.
But what exactly?
The early candidate is to outlaw "silencers" which is more of an admission that one doesn't understand guns rather than a call to do something about them. "Silencers" are actually "flash suppressors" and, unlike you see in the movies, the guns still make one heck of a noise when fired.
The second thing you hear is to "close the gun show loophole". OK, but by all accounts Stephen Paddock purchased his firearms either from a gun store, and completed all of the requisite background checks, or we don't know where he obtained them yet. So it's not clear that that would have had any impact at all.
Limiting the amount of guns is my favorite. Yes, the man appears to have owned several guns but it's unclear that he would have been less successful with five guns than say the 23 that he had. Limiting ammunition is another bad idea, both would only encourage an untraceable black market which would result in us having no idea where the guns or bullets really are.
Finally, and my favorite, is the idea that gun owners should be forced to "voluntarily give up their guns". Nevermind that this proposal is an oxymoron, it's also impractical and will lead to only the law-abiding citizens doing the same. What this means is that only criminals will own guns, and anyone who continues to own a gun will become a criminal. It's amazing how quick our tribes are to try and criminalize behavior they don't like, while simultaneously trying to decriminalize what they enjoy.
While I'm no fan of "conceal and open carry" laws, in most cases having a gun is not going to prevent any crime, none of us are Jason Bourne after all, I don't think their repeal would do much, very few crimes are committed by lawful gun-carriers after all.
I also don't think the answer lies in arresting and incarcerating people who buy guns that are really meant to go to their criminal husbands, boyfriends, etc. Which is nothing more than a way for the Right, this time, to make 'more' illegal things, and people, they don't like.
I might get on board with outlawing bump-stocks, for which I can see no practical application outside of making the gun a more-effective killing machine, and I am on-board with closing the so-called gun-show loophole. Not to prevent criminals from receiving guns but to ensure that everyone who purchases a firearm through legal channels is legally entitled to do so.
The editors of National Review yesterday had a point when they wrote: "not every crime demands a new law" but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at ways to prevent them going forward. Not is it advisable to strip rights away from otherwise law-abiding citizens in a vain effort to punish the law-breakers. Unfortunately that is an action that our elected rulers always seem to take.
It is understandable that people are distraught over Sunday night's shootings, that they are angry and looking to lash out. What's not defensible is the belief that the only sane solution to the problem is revoking a key portion of the bill of rights. Especially when you consider the same people that want to repeal number 2 are knee-deep in efforts to kick the shit out of the other nine as well.
Rule of law, as messy as it may be, is vital to the health of a country. Once that goes so do the last tools to hold back tyranny. Which, ironically, is the reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.
