Every time there's a high-profile shooting in the United States, anti-gun activists and politicians inevitably seize on the tragedy to push for a gun control "solution", and we've seen plenty of that since Charlie Kirk was assassinated last week. Even before we knew the basic facts behind Kirk's murder anti-gunners were issuing vague calls to "do something" about our gun laws, and they haven't stopped since.
Kirk's assassin didn't use an AR-15 or any other so-called assault weapon. He didn't use a "large capacity" magazine. His weapon of choice was a hunting rifle; one of the few guns that anti-2A activists claim to be okay with. That removes one of the gun control lobby's major talking points, but anti-gunners like Gabby Giffords and former Arizona senator Jeff Flake are still pushing other gun control "solutions" to this violence. In a column at USA Today the pair have issued a "bipartisan" demand for Congress to impose new restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms; ironically, while decrying those "extreme voices" who are "attempting to hijack this debate."
There are calls for “war” targeting progressive institutions and donors, and other frightening forms of collective punishment against the president’s critics. Meanwhile, there are radical individuals on the left celebrating the tragedy as an act of twisted political justice. Political violence of any kind, waged by government agents or external extremists, is a betrayal of our founding principles.
I don't think it's fair to say that those on the left who are celebrating Kirk's death are "radical individuals". I mean, they are, but the depth and breadth of those gleefully reacting to his assassination goes far beyond the fringes of Democratic circles. Conversely, I don't think it's accurate to say that only the "extreme" right is calling for "war" against progressive institutions and donors. These voices, on both the left and the right, are coming (at least in part) from the mainstream members of the left and right, which is one of the reasons why this moment feels so fraught and perilous to our nation's future.
And it's not just those voices who are trying to hijack the conversation. Flake and Giffords are doing the same by pushing gun control as a response to Kirk's assassination.
... we need to talk about how astonishingly easy it is for violent extremists to assemble arsenals of guns to use against people whom social media characters and algorithms persuade them to hate. This isn’t about left or right, Democrats or Republicans. By now, we know all too well that murderous radicals of any political stripe can be a threat to anyone in the public sphere, as well as the innocent people around them.
Like the majority of Americans, we both support protecting the gun rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. But the stakes are too high to rely solely on the honor system – we need more effective background checks and "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who pose an imminent danger.
What are "more effective" background checks? I'm assuming the pair are talking about imposing background checks on all firearm transfers, not just commercial transactions, but those wouldn't have stopped the man accused of killing Kirk. He had no previous criminal history, so he wouldn't have failed a NICS check if and when he'd purchased a gun, no matter if it was a private sale or he bought a gun from a local FFL.
What about a "red flag" law? Again, there's no evidence that anyone around him believed he posed a danger to himself or anyone else, so there would have been no reason to seek an Extreme Risk Protection Order. But even if he had been the subject of a "red flag" order, he could have easily gotten his hands on a gun, so long as he was willing to break the law. "Red flag" laws don't actually deal with the underlying dangerousness of an individual. They simply allow for politicians to claim the problem is solved when those individuals are denied access to legally purchase or possess a firearm; though they still have access to knives, gasoline, matches, and anything else they might use as a weapon (including illegally acquired guns and ammunition.
Decades from now, Americans will know how this generation of leaders responded in these trying moments. As former elected officials, we have learned that political careers are brief but that legacies last forever. In the wake of Charlie Kirk's horrific assassination, and following other concerning episodes of political violence in recent years, we hope politicians and commentators on all sides take a moment, put down the phone or push their chairs back from their computers, and seriously consider how all of our actions in the coming days and weeks will shape this country for future generations.
That's the best advice Flake and Giffords offer in their column. I just wish they'd taken their own words to heart. The pair are hardly the only public figures who are exploiting Charlie Kirk's death to advance their own ideological agenda, and I doubt they'll be the last. Using Kirk's assassination to push for gun control measures that wouldn't have prevented this tragedy in the first place is grossly opportunistic, and only contributes to the toxic political environment that Giffords and Flake claim to be so concerned about.
Editor’s Note: Those who want to restrict our Second Amendment rights will use any excuse they can to push their radical gun control agenda.
Help us push back on their gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership
Join the conversation as a VIP Member