Gun Control, Gabby Giffords, and Facts: How to offend liberals.

Gabby_giffords

Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelley testifying before Congress

From the Slate:

But the big problem with the mocking argument put forth by Breitbart and the NRA (which did not return a call seeking comment) is that it misses the entire point of Giffords’ advocacy. She is not devoting herself to the cause of expanding background checks because that measure would have stopped Loughner, but because that measure is the one that police and criminal justice experts believe would have the biggest impact on reducing gun violence overall. The same was true of the families of the victims in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre: Universal background checks would not have stopped Adam Lanza, who got his guns from his mother, but the families wanted to push for whatever reform would limit shooting deaths, period. Making it harder for people with criminal records, histories of domestic violence, and adjudications for mental illness to obtain guns is one of the best measures at our disposal to do so.

So let me get this straight: The point of Giffords advocacy is that it would not have stopped the Adam Lanza’s, but it would “reduce the overall gun crime.”  Otherwise, we’re just mocking Giffords and the families of Sandy Hook?

Right.

Once you liberals stop being offended for a moment, consider this:  Most criminals who use guns, the ones that you are targeting, don’t buy guns legally.  They acquire them illegally or from other means.  A background check would not stop them any more than Adam Lanza nor Jared Loughner.  It is an attempt to pre-emptively place burdens on the vast majority of the law abiding citizens on the chance of catching a few bad guys trying to use legitimate means to get one.

The problem is not the gun.  The problem is the crazy person behind the gun.  While you are busy trying to take away those things that are Constitutionally protected from law abiding citizens, you’re ignoring the root cause:  Mental illness that needs far more advocacy to come up with better methods to help diagnose and treat.  You’re looking in the wrong place and vilifying the instrument, rather than trying to address the real problem.  And that, is what is the most offensive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s