Premium

Chris Murphy doesn't want "innovative" solutions to crime

Chris Murphy doesn't want "innovative" solutions to crime
AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib

When Sen. Chris Murphy talks, you kind of need to expect something pushing gun control to fly out of his mouth. It’s what he does and what he’s about.

Sometimes he talks about other issues, sure, but he’s a dyed-in-the-wool gun grabber if ever there were someone “worthy” of that title.

And it’s clear that he’s not interested in addressing our surging violent crime rates with anything that doesn’t infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

Innovative solutions are not necessary to combat gun violence, according to U.S. Senator Chris Murphy.

“Here’s my plea to you: don’t search too hard for innovative solutions,” Murphy said. “We really don’t need to make up new solutions. We actually know what works.”

Boston College Law School’s Rappaport Center for Law and Public Policy welcomed Murphy on Friday as the keynote speaker of its virtual conference on gun laws and safety.

Murphy, the junior senator from Connecticut, explained “what works” with respect to gun safety—taking greater caution in distributing weapons, specifically assault weapons.

That’s right. Violent crime is because we can buy AR-15s, despite the fact that rifles of all kinds are used less often to murder someone than hands and feet.

But no, that doesn’t matter. Crime all boils down to “assault weapons.”

And his evidence to support that? It’s laughable.

Murphy said these methods result in lower rates of gun violence, directly comparing Connecticut’s rates to Florida’s.

“Connecticut has a rate of gun violence 400 percent lower than Florida,” he said. “People in Connecticut are different than people in Florida, I’m sure that’s true, but they’re not 400 percent different. The reason that we have lower gun violence rates is because we’re just a lot more careful about who gets a weapon.”

That’s right. The evidence is a simple correlation between Connecticut and Florida.

However, there are other differences between the two states as well, such as Connecticut having the tenth lowest poverty rate in the nation compared to Florida which has the 17th highest, according to USA Today.

The link between poverty and crime is well-established and nothing new, so it seems silly to assume the difference between the two state’s violent crime rates is purely because Florida hasn’t banned a type of gun used in a tiny fraction of all violent crimes.

And the truth is that while Murphy might then move to use other “evidence,” such as the many studies presented as evidence of gun control, we also know that every single one of those studies has basically been debunked.

But let’s say that the link exists. So what?

Even if gun control worked as proponents like Murphy claim–it doesn’t, but let’s roll with it for a minute–why turn down innovative solutions to violent crime? If there’s a way to reduce crime and preserve people’s Second Amendment rights, why not at least be open to discussing these things?

The truth is that Murphy has gotten so laser-focused on gun control that he can’t see anything else. He’s banking his entire legacy on restricting people’s ability to buy an entire category of firearm. As a result, he’s literally not interested in addressing the overall problem of crime.

Unfortunately for him, even if he gets his way, we’re unlikely to see much of a difference regarding, well, anything.

Even mass shootings will fail to drop as most of those tend to use handguns instead of so-called assault weapons. Literally, nothing would change except law-abiding citizens would be deprived of a tool that works well for self-defense in a number of circumstances.

And the fact that Murphy’s resistant to new, innovative solutions shows that it’s not about keeping people safe. It’s not about reducing crime. It’s about nothing but restricting your rights.