What Exactly Has The Anti-Gun Movement Done To Protect Children From 'Gun Violence'?
by Dave Dalton on July 13, 2014
After reading a very interesting article by S.E. Cupp I started to think about what the so-called anti-gun movement has done since Sandy Hook to help protect children from gun violence. After thinking about it for quite some time the obvious conclusion is nothing. While they may claim multiple 'victories' when you look at them they are nothing more than fluff. When I say fluff I mean they are nothing more than feel good ditties designed to make them look like they are doing something when in fact they have done nothing that would actually prevented a single instance of 'gun violence'.
For example, 'Everytown For Gun Safety', the latest rendition of ex-NYC mayor Bloomberg's never ending war on law abiding gun owners, has claimed 'victory' by pushing several chain businesses into making statements about carrying firearms in their establishments. Basically they harass these businesses with tweets, Facebook posts and threats about taking their business elsewhere unless the company bans the carrying of firearms in their stores. Of course these corporations want nothing to do with the topic. Even more so they do not want to alienate any of their customers but they are pressured into a response by the onslaught of harassment.
What is funny though it that not one of these businesses have actually come out and banned the carrying of firearms. Their statements are carefully crafted by their PR departments in a way that seems to shut up 'Everytown' yet when you look at the details of their announcements there is little to no change in their existing policy. Simply put there are no 'no firearms allowed' signs going up outside Target, Office Max or Chipotle any time soon.
But that's not the topic of this post, what is at question is what, if any, effect have these minor policy changes done to protect children or stop gun violence? Has anything they have 'accomplished' done anything that could stop another Sandy Hook? Have their efforts stopped (insert heavy sarcasm) the next mass shooting at Target, or the bloodshed in our inner cities? The answer of course is no.
These groups are going after what is known as 'soft targets'. It takes little effort to harass a corporation these days thanks to the internet and social media. They then trumpet their perceived victories all while the real problems are all but ignored by them, the media and sadly enough politicians. After the bloody weekend in Chicago the only thing they had to say was 'weak state and federal firearm laws are to blame' … Really? Chicago and Illinois have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country yet this violence continues on a daily basis.
When I mentioned soft targets before I was saying these anti-gun groups don't have the guts or the motivation to actually go after the root causes of 'gun violence'. What exactly has Shannon Watts and Mike Bloomberg done to address the gangs that roam our city streets, or the revolving door criminal justice system that allows criminals with incredibly long rap sheets to be returned to the streets over and over and over? Trust me these gangs don't give a rat's ass about Shannon or Mike getting Target to 'announce a policy'. They are criminals, get that? CRIMINALS! Every one of the 82 shootings in Chicago last weekend were gang related, e.g. caused by criminals.
If these groups are in fact so concerned why are they not asking for stiffer sentences for these gang members? Why are they not outraged and demanding change to laws and judges that continue to release this plague back onto our streets? Why are they not 'in the trenches' working with communities to stop gang violence?
Why are these groups not 'shouting from the rooftops' over the lack of access to mental health care? The US ranks #1 in mental health problems yet we have virtually no safety net in place for people in crisis. Instead they try and push laws that allow someone to claim someone else MIGHT be mentally ill and have the police swoop in and take their firearms. Nothing about treating the person, if in fact they are mentally unstable, but damn let's get them guns!
Did the tragedy in California last month not teach these people anything? The boy killed three people with a knife and ran over several others. So let's not worry about if they get treatment, let's just 'neutralize' them by taking away their guns. Let someone else worry about them lashing out some other way.
What have they done to help secure our schools from those that would attempt another attack like Sandy Hook? Have they backed armed security in schools? Have they backed training and licensing teachers, principles or security officers to carry firearms? Of course they haven't because that makes too much sense and heaven knows these people haven't the common sense of a flea. Instead they have advocated for reducing magazine capacities and banning scarey 'assault weapons'. So we must assume that they really aren't concerned about another school shooting because we all know no one (heavy sarcasm again) would ever attack a school with a shotgun, or a handgun, or a rifle with multiple low capacity magazines or maybe multiple firearms. That would never happen ... well actually it has.
So why do these groups avoid the hard issues, the problems that require work and thought and effort? I'll tell you why. They don't have the guts to take on the hard issues. They don't have the fortitude to look at the problem using common sense and begin to address the real issues, because they are hard. Doing something hard takes work and a backbone, harassing law abiding citizens and corporations is easy.