Over the last month, tragedy has struck again in several separate instances of evil men murdering innocent people.
Before much was known about these mass shootings, pro-gun control politicians and special interest groups sounded the alarm and demanded the passage of gun control laws that they say would prevent future acts of violence. In Texas, for example, the state’s relatively lax gun laws were blamed for the murders, despite the inconvenient fact the Texas murderer’s gun was illegally possessed in the first place.
Those demanding action suggest “universal background checks,” “red flag” laws, a ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” as solutions. When emotions run high, it is imperative that lawmakers think carefully about these decisions. We must not let emotion overtake a sober analysis of the real effect new laws will have, and whether they actually would have had any effect on the mass shootings in question.
There’s a long history of instances where the call to “do something” resulted in bad public policy.
On Oct. 26, 2001, then-President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act into law, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks shook our nation. While the act was well-intentioned — it sought to improve national security — many programs and policies it created allowed for rampant abuse of our civil liberties, including widespread domestic surveillance.
Additionally, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which purported to prevent espionage on American soil. The order targeted those of Japanese descent, many of whom were citizens, and saw them sent to internment camps. In total, about 117,000 people were affected by this misguided, fear-driven policy.
While Sept. 11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor differ from mass shootings in many ways, they offer some insight into what happens when we embrace radical policy changes simply for the sake of “doing something” in the aftermath of a tragedy.
Are we prepared to once again punish everyone for the actions of a few? That’s what gun control advocates are proposing.
In the past week, leading Democrats and some Republicans have called for “universal background checks.” Yet several of the perpetrators of the latest horrific shootings obtained their firearms through licensed dealers, rendering the call for “universal background checks” nothing more than an attempt to score political points and say “we did something,” all the while punishing the rest of the nation. This “solution” would potentially criminalize leaving guns with family or friends, and would have done nothing to prevent the very incidents that spurred its passage.
Emotional cries for so-called red flag laws are also running rampant.
Once again, the evidence suggests that even if there had been red flag laws in place, they would have done nothing to prevent recent mass shootings. CNN reports the El Paso, Texas, murderer’s mother contacted police with concerns weeks before tragedy struck, but nothing she inquired about would have triggered a red flag order. This proposed solution would have done nothing, but would come at the expense of due process and civil liberties.
News outlets are now reporting that an assault weapons ban is on the table. While these incidents scare people, the reality is that assault weapons are rarely used in crime. The latest FBI statistics show that rifles of all types are used in 2.66% of murders. While any loss of life is certainly tragic, there is no epidemic of violence caused by or related to assault weapons, but rather isolated instances glamorized by the media and political class.
The rush to craft “solutions” in Washington, D.C., and state capitals across the country in response to tragedy is an ill-fated endeavor.
Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told the media “What we can’t do is fail to pass something. The urgency of this is not lost on any of us.” While well-intentioned, passing laws for the sake of “doing something,” does not solve anything. In fact, the “do something,” emotion-driven approach only ensures that bad policy will win the day.
Adam Kraut is Director of Legal Strategy with Firearms Policy Coalition and an experienced civil rights litigator. He can be found on Twitter @TheAdamKraut.
