Anti-Gunners Quick to Exploit Manhattan Mass Shooting

Police in New York City are still piecing together what led a 27-year-old security guard from Las Vegas to open fire in a Manhattan high rise on Monday afternoon, killing four people before taking his own life.

According to initial reports, including comments by New York Mayor Eric Adams, the killer was likely trying to target the headquarters of the National Football League. A note allegedly found on his body referred to his belief that he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy as a result of his high school football career, though authorities have also said the attacker had a history of mental illness. 

Before any of those details were known, however, the gun control lobby was quick to exploit the shooting on their social media accounts. Brady issued a statement while details of the attack were still developing, with Brady president Kris Brown pointing the finger at the firearms industry for the shooting. 

We need more lawmakers to take action on behalf of the majority of Americans who support strengthening common-sense gun laws rather than working on behalf of gun industry executives who care more about their bottom line than the safety of our children. The alleged photos of the gunman striding into a Midtown office building wielding an apparent rifle are deeply unsettling and serve as a reminder of the persistent dangers posed by easy access to uniquely lethal weapons. We must ask questions not just about the suspect in this incident, but about the firearm, its origins, and how this shooting could have been prevented.

Everytown for Gun Safety, meanwhile, posted a missive on Bluesky reading in part:

 Multiple people have been shot after a gunman armed with a weapon of war opened fire at an office building in Manhattan.No one should have to take cover from gunfire—whether at work, school, or anywhere in their community. We cannot accept yet another act of mass gun violence as normal.

I don't think anybody accepts this as "normal". The fact that there's wall-to-wall coverage of this shooting is a pretty good indication that these kinds of acts are considered anything but normal. 

What is par for the course, however, is the gun control lobby's immediate attempt to make this about the gun that was used in the attack, not the person who pulled the trigger. I don't know that police have definitively stated what the killer was carrying, but I've seen it described in various media reports as an AR-15, an AR-style pistol, and even an M4 carbine. Only the last of those can accurately be described as a weapon of war, but any time a long gun in used in a high-profile shooting like this one the anti-gunners are quick to demand a ban on so-called assault weapons using the most damning terms possible like "weapon of war" or "uniquely lethal".

All firearms are lethal, and this attack could have been just as deadly if the killer chose to use a handgun instead of a long gun. At the moment, the biggest question to me is whether the killer's alleged history of mental illness should or did prohibit him from lawfully possessing a firearm. The killer allegedly possessed a concealed carry license issued by the Las Vegas police, but it's unknown at this time whether that license was still valid or had been revoked for any reason. 

Did his mental illness ever lead to an involuntary commitment? Should his behavior have warranted a civil commitment under either California or Nevada law? Nevada also has a "red flag" law, which gun control activists swear will stop attacks like these. Was he ever subject to an Extreme Risk Protection Order? 

At this point in time there are lots of questions still swirling around, but the gun control lobby thinks it already has the answers: banning the most popular and common rifles in the country, establishing more "gun-free zones", and eradicating our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.