No, Goldie, this is Not on Us

As you would expect, the anti-gun ghouls are out in full force in the wake of a mass murder in yet another gun-free zone on a community college campus in Oregon.

I expect it from people like President Obama. Fresh off a visit to the UN where he had his balls handed to him by just about every other world leader, Obama strode to the podium before any facts were known about the shooting in Oregon to call for more pointless gun control.

Other Democrats, anti-gun groups and media members were not far behind. Before any of them knew who the shooter was, what kind of weapons he used, or how he obtained them, the calls went out for the usual litany of pointless remedies. Expanded background checks. Closing the “gunshow loophole.” Banning online sales. Banning “assault weapons.”

At The Daily Beast I found one such example. Author, former PMSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor tells her own tragic tale of mourning and loss as she recounts receiving a phone call informing her of the death of her brother Chris, who was shot and killed at a party. She doesn't provide us any context as to why her brother would have been targeted at this party. She uses raw emotion and very little in the way of logic to call for more gun control.

By the night’s end as many as 10 more families will get that same call. Ten families and the community that loves them will feel that same gut-wrenching pain. According to the latest reports, more than 20 others were also injured at Umpqua Community College. That should be enough.

She goes on to mention Newtown (gun free zone), Lafayette (gun free zone), Aurora (gun free zone), Columbine (which happened during the Clinton gun ban), the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, the shooting of the journalists in Virginia (by a disgruntled #BlackLivesMatter journalist like Taylor) and a couple others.

On any given night, it’s in the streets of American cities from Los Angeles to Atlanta. Tomorrow there will be a child sitting in a Chicago classroom who is more concerned about being shot on the walk home than the pop-quiz that might come.

Chicago is a city-wide gun-free zone and yet it's arguably the most violent city in America. Way to torpedo the premise of your entire article before you even get to your premise.

Some will tell you that this is the wrong time to talk about gun violence. They will tell you that we should not politicize the issue while families are grieving. As a survivor and as someone who owned a gun most of my adult life, I could not disagree more.

I'm sorry, but I continue to be baffled by this. Why are we so focused on “gun violence?” Why are gun deaths more tragic than others? The lunatic in Oregon asked his victims what their religion was. If they answered “Christian,” he killed them. Tell me, Goldie, had he beheaded them, would that have been less tragic than shooting them with a gun? Maybe a good old fashioned 12th century head-chopping would have been preferable to you.

There is not a single day in this country when a family does not grieve over the loss of someone to gun violence.

Since the mortality rate is still 100%, the fact of the matter is that not a single day goes by in any country when a family does not grieve over the loss of someone. Period. Again, why is the grief over a death by gun worse than death by beating, or stabbing, or strangulation, or take your pick?

It is time, right now, to confront gun culture in America. It is time to tighten restrictions on legal purchases and crack down on the illegal gun trade.

Okay, I'm with you on the illegal gun trade part, but you lost me on the rest. There's no “gun culture” to confront. There is a liberal, wussified, perpetual aggrievement culture that we need to confront. The entire #BlackLivesMatter nonsense that Ms. Taylor promotes and the idiotic #Gunsense crowd that wets its collective pants at the mere mention of guns. This article and the incessant focus on “gun violence” is proof that we have a culture of hoplophobia.

Please explain the logic underlying your conclusion that to stop criminals we need to tighten restrictions on legal purchases. Far more people die in car accidents, or drownings, or poisonings, but we don't go out and tighten restrictions on legal purchases of cars or ladders or swimming pools or household chemicals as a result. So to stop, Oh I don't know, drunk driving, we need to crack down on people who don't drink? To crack down on illegal drug trade we need to tighten restrictions on the purchase of legal products? That may be a bad example.

For starters, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004, should be renewed.

No, Goldie, that bit of un-Constitutional legislation did nothing to curb violent crime whatsoever. Case in point, that Columbine massacre which you refer to earlier in your piece. How can you use Columbine as an example of why we need the “Assault Weapons Ban” without noting that it took place while the ban was in effect? Maybe that little fact slipped your attention, and the mind-numbed Obama-loving readers of The Daily Beast will probably not even know that fact themselves.

The online sale of firearms should be banned altogether and the gun show loophole must be closed. The lion’s share of gun violence in this country is committed with cheap, illegal handguns—the kinds of guns that killed my father and brother—and straw purchasers must face stiffer criminal penalties.

This is maybe Ms. Taylors best and worst non-sequitur in the entire piece. Since she clearly knows sweet Foxtrot Alpha about online firearms sales or gunshows, this paragraph is a joke. Most online sales and sales conducted at gunshows, the vast majority, are not private sales between individuals. They involve Federally licensed gun dealers and background checks are performed for those sales. There are a small percentage of private sales conducted face to face at gun shows or which are initiated online. Studies have shown that the number of criminals who obtain their guns through these means is statistically insignificant. Less than 2%.

And how would the “Assault weapons” ban have any effect on what Ms. Taylor admits is the “lion's share” of violence committed with “cheap, illegal handguns?” The handguns she refers to are generally obtained by criminals from friends, family members, other gang members, or through theft according to a study conducted at Duke University. So, how would closing the “gunshow loophole” or banning online sales of firearms prevent that from happening?

As I write this, President Obama is addressing the nation in a press conference.

And there's the problem, Goldie. Obama is using these deaths to further a political agenda, not to do something about gun violence. He just wants to do something about guns. Namely get rid of them. Obama made a statement to the press before anyone on the ground in Oregon had. Nobody had any facts, least of all the President. That's pretty much his M.O., though. Shoot from the lip. You're admitting that you're doing the same thing. You're watching the president's standard, knee-jerk reaction and you're getting all worked up without knowing anything more than he does.

Well, you were a contributor to MSNBC. The network where journalism and ethics go to die. Makes sense.

Conservative voices in the discourse will invariably point an indicting finger at the president for being “political.” Meanwhile, a Republican-controlled Congress is making a political choice to do nothing.

Yes, Goldie, we want Congress to do nothing. Because this is not something that more laws can fix, and doing “something” just so politicians can say they did “something” about an issue, doesn't mean it will be good or helpful. Most of the time, when Congress gets involved, it makes things worse. There are always unintended consequences.

Lets's revisit the examples you trotted out at the beginning of Ms. Taylor's article:

Newtown – The shooter killed his own mother (we have laws against that kind of thing, I think), stole her guns (theft is generally illegal, unless the government does it), went to the school with the guns (Safe Schools Act makes that illegal), and proceeded to shoot people at the school (there are laws against killing kids…unless you're Planned Parenthood).

Aurora – The shooter had no criminal record and passed a background check in purchasing his weapons. He passed up six movie theaters that were closer to his home and instead chose the only one which posted “no guns” signs. He then went inside and shot people knowing he would face no resistance (as I said before, we have laws against that).

Columbine – The two shooters were under 21 (making possession of their handguns illegal), they built bombs and planted them inside the school (illegal), they used weapons that were banned under the Clinton “assault weapons ban” which you advocate bringing back (so that's another crime), and then there's that whole murder thing.

Sikh Temple – The shooter went to a place of worship where no guns were allowed and committed murder, which, as we've pointed out, is already against the law.

Mall in Portland, Oregon – This would be the Clackamass Mall, where the shooter was confronted by concealed carry permit holder and committed suicide before he could commit more, you know, murder.

Virginia Journalists – Crazed social justice warrior who on any other day would be down with everything Goldie Taylor espouses in the racist #BlackLivesMatter movement, passed a background check to buy his gun then video taped himself as he shoots and kills two of his colleagues (which is generally frowned upon).

North Charleston – Racist shooter passed a background check. He should not have, but he did. Oops. He then went into a church, sat down with a prayer group for an hour and then committed a vile and despicable act by murdering the very people he sat and prayed with. Again, that whole illegal murder thing.

In each of these cases, how would more laws have made a difference? Except to allow politicians to pander to voters by claiming to have done “something?”

Let's say we ban online sales, and require background checks for all private sales. Let's say we ban “assault weapons.” Would any of the examples Ms. Taylor provides, from Newtown to North Charleston, have been stopped if her policy prescriptions had been in place? No. The shooters in every case passed the magical background checks or used weapons that would not have been banned. The guy in Aurora and Newtown and Portland all had “assault weapons” but they also had pistols, and the one in Aurora used a shotgun. In Columbine, despite the ban, the shooters had banned weapons. So there's no evidence that Ms. Taylor's policy ideas would have any effect at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

In Chicago, with incredibly strict gun control laws already, 216 people were killed in the first six months of this year. In September alone, the most deadly since 2002, 60 people were killed. If we were to do exactly what Ms. Taylor recommends, do you know what effect that would have had on the violence in Chicago? Assuming that the 1-2% criminals who couldn't get a gun at a gun show changed their mind and gave up their lives of crime, 211 people would still be dead.

Unless you're a brain-dead Biden who thinks that “if it saves just one life” it's worth it, these policies make no sense.

None of those measures would have made a difference in the very examples Ms. Taylor uses to push for these new policies. So why expend all the time, energy, money, and effort to pass meaningless laws that will do nothing to curb the violence? Because they are incremental steps toward a bigger goal. When these policies fail, politicians will call for another round of “common sense” reforms. We'll be told that nobody is suggesting taking away our guns. And nothing will change. And it will happen again. Slowly eroding our freedoms until there's nothing left.

The president was right. When hurricanes and floods come, we do something to make Americans safer. When roads are unsafe, we gas up the paving trucks. When an airplane fails a maintenance check, we ground it.

No, Goldie, the president is dead wrong and this analogy is fundamentally flawed. When hurricanes and floods come we don't restrict the legal ownership of homes. Hurricanes and floods are violent acts of nature. Violent crime is an act of man's sinful nature. Just as no law can stop a flood or a hurricane, no law will prevent the evil that lurks in the heart of an evil person.

When over the counter cough syrup is used as an illicit drug, we start checking the IDs of every buyer. We lock up sinus tablets at the drugstore.

This is the argument you would expect liberals to reject. When over the counter cough syrup is used as an illicit drug, we assume everyone is a criminal because they are buying a legal product. I reject that argument and those policies and people like Goldie Taylor should too. I get hassled for my ID every time I buy cough medicine if one of my kids is sick, but teenagers like Trayvon Martin are somehow running around high on “Purple Drank,” beating the shit out of people and getting themselves shot. Exactly how well has that policy worked out as a deterrent in the war on drugs?

We regulate automotive manufacturers because we know the danger of not wearing seat belts, toxic pollutants, and poorly made tires. Guns, the most dangerous consumer product on the market, should be no different.

You can't be this ignorant, can you? Wait, you worked for MSNBC. Forget I asked.

A gun is a tool. It has no mind of it's own. Just as the car in your driveway won't kill you unless you use it improperly, neither will your gun. Guns are not inherently dangerous unless misused. I can think of a dozen products in my home right now that could kill me just as dead if I were to use them improperly. I could put the toaster in the sink or the hair dryer in the bathtub. I might sit in the garage with the car running and the garage door closed. I could leave my gas stove on all night and light a cigarette first thing in the morning. Maybe I'll stick a fork in an electrical outlet or put my hand under the deck of the lawn mower while it's running. Maybe I'll wash the dishes with gasoline or use arsenic to whiten my teeth. I could trim my toenails with my chainsaw, or bring my charcoal grill inside to warm my house in the winter.

“But wait!” you say. “You shouldn't do those things! You should know better!”

Yes, exactly. And there's a proper way to handle a firearm as well. Guns are not going to harm you or anyone else, unless you misuse them or store them improperly. They are tools and nothing more. And because people are more likely to be beaten to death with blunt objects than killed with rifles, should we make you fill out a form an submit fingerprints to buy a baseball bat for your little leaguer? Because people have been known to poison others using household products, does that mean I should undergo a background check to buy rat poison to kill the pests in my barn?

Of course not. So why the automatic assumption that requiring those things will make us safer when it comes to guns?

Clearly, we cannot eradicate all gun violence in the United States, but that should be no excuse for failing to enact responsible reforms.

Here's that term “responsible” that anti-gunners love to throw around. I don't see anything remotely responsible in restricting legal gun ownership as a means to curb criminal activity. To me that's not responsible, it's stupid.

Despite public opinion polls that plainly spell out our collective support for reasonable gun safety laws, Congress has failed to move. And it won’t move on gun issues until we move on it.

Public opinion polls show exactly the opposite of what Ms. Taylor is suggesting here. The American public has no interest in new gun laws, precisely because they recognize that the issue is not a lack of laws, it's a lack of enforcement. When our government has a catch and release policy with tens of thousands of illegal immigrant felons in the country, when major American cities declare themselves “sanctuaries” and shelter illegal criminals from deportation, when we refuse to prosecute violent criminals because they are a certain ethnicity, when the government sides with criminals against the police and violence and mayhem are allowed to run rampant, when Democrat-run cities with strict gun control laws are the most violent in the nation, when the rights of law abiding citizens are trampled while police are cautious about acting against criminals for fear of inciting racial violence, Americans know that the problem is not a lack of laws, its a systemic problem that is much harder to fix.

Americans know that no politicians nor police officers and certainly no MSNBC contributors will be there to help when the door is broken down or the rapist or mugger attacks. The police come later to gather evidence. The politicians and media show up to make excuses for the criminal. And the victim is forgotten. In the end, Americans realize that they are their own first-responder. That is why gun ownership and concealed carry are increasing in popularity and numbers.

Each year, more than 30,000 people lose their lives to guns in this country.

First off, the 30,000 stat can only be arrived at if you lump in homicides, accidents, and suicides with firearms. As I've noted before, suicides don't count because we are dealing with the truly mentally ill who will find a way to check out by some other means. So that leaves about 11,000 homicides by firearm. Not to minimize that number or suggest that's soooo much better, but if we're going to solve the problem, the least we can do is be honest about the scope of it.

The 11,000 don't lose their lives to guns. When a plane crashes we don't mourn those who lost their lives to planes. When a child drowns in a pool or a bathtub, we don't mourn the lives lost to bathtubs. The students at UCC lost their lives at the hands of a madman. Shifting the responsibility for the act from the person to an inanimate object is childish and it makes it harder for us to solve the problem because we never confront the real culprit.

That pain, our national shame, does not take a holiday, and neither can we. This is on us.

No, Goldie, what's “on us” is that we can't have an honest discussion without the hyperventilation, lies and fear-mongering from people like you. What's “on us” is this problem which people like you and President Obama and many others don't want to face because it's so much easier to blame the gun. The problem is that we have lost our soul in America. Fifty years of feel good liberalism with no consequences, no morality, non-judgemental, squishy progressivism and a cradle-to-grave welfare state has left us with a country with no guard rails. No God. Social media and technology keeps us more connected than ever, and yet we are more disconnected from our neighbors and our fellow man than ever before. Our government is now openly hostile to Christians, and this hostility is propagated in our media, both mass and social. On a dating website, the UCC shooter describes organized religion as one of his “dislikes” and on this awful day he lined up his victims and executed those who professed their faith in Christ Jesus.

We don't need to confront “gun culture.” We need to confront the Progressive, Leftists culture. Thug culture. The welfare culture. The culture of aggrievement and offense that makes everyone think they are a victim of something. The culture of hate and despair and pits groups against each other along racial, economic and religious lines. We need to face the facts that we have created a culture that breeds these hatreds, these resentments, and these disconnected loners who think the answer to life's problems is to commit mass murder.

For the progressive, Godless Left and people like Goldie Taylor, that will require a long, uncomfortable look in the mirror. That's why it's always easier to blame the gun, than to actually try to solve the problem.

2 Comments on "No, Goldie, this is Not on Us"

  1. Well said and spot on.

  2. Robert Ferris | October 4, 2015 at 9:42 am |

    Unfortunately, over the past 40 or so years, far too many of the gullible have fallen for the Left’s hypocritical, antigun propaganda. Now we find ourselves at the ragged edge of a looming national disaster. One threating to destroy the very fabric of Americana via the flood of illegals through uncontrolled borders. This administration’s absolute refusal to enforce immigration law. Now comes the tsunami of Syrian refugees, and the terrorist most certain to be among them.
    This administration’s solution is to knowingly and willingly perpetuate the universal lie that guns are the problem to further their antigun campaign through subversion, intentional deception spewed forth by it’s never ending parade of leftist lunatics and pathological liars, solely to further their intended goal, to at some point, disarm Americans. No matter the cost, we simply cannot permit that to happen.
    Afterall, five days before his inauguration, Obama stated, “We are five days from, fundamentally changing America.” To that end, surrounded by his bodyguard of liars, Obama has been a man of his word.

Comments are closed.