The Uvalde elementary school shooting has sparked another public discussion riddled with confusion, hyperbole, and banal talking points. Frothing out of talk shows, the mouths of publicity hounds, and the speeches on the floors of Congress come the same stale rhetoric and empty gestures that will do absolutely nothing to stop sociopaths from shooting into crowds of adults or kids. The problem is what it has always been: unhinged people looking for soft targets.
First, the confusing rhetoric. A favorite among demagogues seeking to exploit horrible incidences for partisan advantage is “weapons of war”. They go right from the analogy of machine guns, real weapons of war, to the semi-auto rifles available for sale in a civilian gun store. The guns in the store look like the kind used on the battlefield of Iraq and Afghanistan but aren’t. They are as semi-auto, and not full auto, as my scoped semi-auto Remington 742 rifle. The 742 looks like deer rifle in one’s imagination.
They both operate the same and the bullet exits the barrel at the same frequency. So, the argument pivots on cosmetics. That’s right, ban a gun for its appearance but watch the same gun appear later absent the looks (pistol grip, banana clip, and with a different stock). It’s ridiculous. This is what happens when public policy is left to the firearm illiterate.
Next, the idea of red flag or stop orders that is being tossed around. These orders allow DA’s and judges to confiscate guns for cause. The problem with the idea is the great variability in implementation and enforcement. A Texas DA is likely to be a far cry in implementation from Joe Biden’s Justice Department, San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, or LA’s George Gascon. In the former, a measured enforcement; in the other, the enticing opportunity to eradicate the Second Amendment. We’ve all seen what the latter has done to the enforcement of immigration law and a host of crimes below rape and murder. They execute the law as they wish.
A sensible middle ground might be an enhanced insta-check system, with updated, improved, and expanded criteria for denials. But, as above, it is only as good as the people administering it.
The “weapons of war” nonsense does nothing to enhance understanding. Red flag systems are ripe for abuse by the soapbox orator in the DA’s office. Even the middle ground only applies to new gun purchases. That leaves a big, huge gaping hole in the security of our kids: many of our schools are glaring soft targets, which means non-existent or too few good people with guns on the school grounds to stop bad people with guns. If you want to protect the kids, immediately harden your soft targets with many good people with guns. It’s the one thing that’ll make a difference.
No more soft targets, and leave the rest of the gun debate for another day.
RogerG