Mass shootings always spark someone pushing for gun control. They start making demands before the bullets even stop flying, if they can. They don't worry about what happened.
It's always framed as "common sense" gun control. As a friend of mine notes, though, there's no such thing.
It may sound good, mind you, but that's only on the surface level.
Over at Ammoland, my friend Dan Wos talks about why it doesn't exist.
You hear it all the time, groups like Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Gifford group beat the drum of so-called “common sense” legislation. When the average person hears the term common sense, they assume that the topic at hand is reasonable, makes logical sense, and most people agree with it.
The truth is, gun laws have never made sense, although the narrative is created to make you believe so. In reality, those who are subject to strict gun control laws are much more vulnerable to violent attacks.
The gun grabbers will tell you that legislation limiting you to a bolt-action rifle is “common sense,” even if you must defend yourself against multiple attackers. They’ll tell you that legislation that forces you to keep your firearms locked in a safe is “common sense” and safer for you and your family. Never mentioning the disastrous effects storage laws have on a person’s ability to defend themselves. They want you to believe that it’s “common sense” to have what they call “universal background checks” for all law-abiding gun owners, while the bad guys avoid background checks altogether.
They’ll tell you that gun free zones are “common sense” laws that will keep people safe, even though 94% of violent attacks occur in gun free zones. They will tell you that the reason there’s so much violence in Democrat run cities that have the highest level of gun control laws is because we need more of the same gun laws to keep you safe. Because, well….“Common sense.”
The truth is, people want to believe that they are making good choices and that they are sensible in their decisions. Nobody wants to think they lack sensibility. That’s why the term “common sense” is used when convincing people to give up their rights and support dangerous gun laws. It’s an easy way to convince people and coerce them into doing things that they might not otherwise do if they had accurate information. It plays directly to a person’s need to believe they are smart. This is a typical marketing strategy when selling products.
Now, Dan likely wrote this before the events of Wednesday morning, but we all know that doesn't change the validity of what he says here.
For example, all schools in Minnesota, both public and private, are gun-free zones. The killer there simply ignored it and did so because he intended to murder innocent children attending mass. Does anyone honestly think that gun-free zones will discourage people who have murderous intent already? Of course not.
Right now, many are calling for red flag laws. Minnesota has them and has had them for about a year or so. How did those work out again?
Others are calling for an assault weapon ban. The thing is, he had all the time in the world. He could have carried out this attack with a handgun. There was no one to stop him.
But that gun-free zone law? That meant no one in that church could have fought back. That "common sense" gun control law prevented armed resistance.
I'm not saying that anyone would have been carrying if they could. I'd have to talk to everyone there, and even then, some might say they'd have carried if they could have simply because, in hindsight, they know it might have helped. Still, the law is the law, and it didn't do anything to protect those kids and may have put them more at risk.
Look, for the most part, common sense is so uncommon that it almost qualifies as a superpower these days. Calling something common sense, though, doesn't change the nature of it. It doesn't make it common sense just because you say it's that. You have to consider the full ramifications of one's actions. What may look obvious to you doesn't equate to the most sensible course of action. Investing in housing may have looked pretty obvious in 2007, for example.
That didn't make it common sense.
