Earlier this week, we shared the story of a writer whose work lead her to discover that gun control doesn’t really work. The statistics just don’t lie, and she found that absolutely none of what the anti-gun crusaders were saying would work, actually would.
However, she wasn’t the only one to be pushed away by reality. This time we have someone who got pushed away by the nonsensical efforts by the anti-gun forces following mass shootings. Particularly when they would have impacted him.
The Las Vegas attack that took the lives of 59 people and wounded hundreds of others immediately spurred another round of liberals calling for gun control. As a Muslim American who has been staunchly liberal most my life, I agreed with them after most mass shootings.
But this time, I find myself on the other side of the aisle.
Only 16 months ago after the tragic shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, congressional Democrats staged a sit-in to demand that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan call for a vote on gun control. More specifically, Democrats wanted to ban gun sales to those who were on the no-fly list.
My major problem with that kind of legislation? The no-fly list was created by the government to track individuals who were suspected of terrorism, not convicted. If this law passed, it would have completely subverted the right to due process and restricted one’s right to own a firearm without any convictions in their name. And despite voting overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats, this type of legislation would hurt Muslim Americans the most.
My name is not on a terrorist watch list, nor have I ever been subject to much scrutiny by the TSA or the Department of Homeland Security while traveling in an airport. However, my father, an American Muslim who was born in Pakistan, has been detained multiple times while traveling back and forth to perform heart surgery on those who badly needed it. Since watch lists are created by the government, what’s to stop them from arbitrarily adding my name or any of my relatives to the list? My rights could be restricted if the Democrats had their way.
Writer Siraj Hashmi goes on to detail how the proposals following such mass shootings almost never are anything that would have actually prevented the event, and he’s absolutely right.
The fact of the matter is that the anti-gun crusaders rarely seem to actually care about the victims. They ghoulishly pile the bodies of the dead up so they can use them as an ersatz soapbox to pontificate on things that would have had no impact. They use them to push an agenda, pretend it would have helped, but knowing it wouldn’t.
Take, for example, Nancy Pelosi. When specifically asked for a proposal that would have stopped the Las Vegas killer, her answer? Background checks. She doesn’t seem to actually care about the victims of Las Vegas. All she cares about is getting the win.
In the process, however, she turns potential allies like Hashmi away. They look at this, know it would have done nothing, and then walk away without considering anything else. After all, if you want people to act because of a tragedy, then that action should at least look like it would have prevented such a tragedy.
But then again, I’m cool with it. After all, one should never interrupt an opponent when they’re making a mistake.