San Bernardino, Part II

The official site of the FBI notes a total of 14,196 murders in the US in 2013, obviously not all by guns. They state that the total represents a 7.8% decrease from 2009 and a 12.1 decrease from 2004. A decrease in the murder rate! Yet, while these mass killings are indeed horrific, and while every sane person feels for the victims and their loved ones, the left is automatically drawn to the issue as an issue of guns. In 2006, 1830 were killed by knives. The number was 1817 in 2007. Shall we ban possession of knives; or at least control their sale and distribution?

In 2013, 32,719 people were killed in auto accidents. Of that total, 11,126 had a blood alcohol equal to or greater than .08%. Where is the call to ban cars? (I know, a few wackos would have us do just that.) Where is the call to ban alcohol? I believe we tried that once. The CDC reports that on a daily basis "more than 9 people are killed and more than 1,153 people are injured in crashes that are reported to involve a distracted driver." On a daily basis! Who has not seen people talking on their hand held phones and even texting while driving?

Why bring up auto fatalities, distracted driving fatalities and deaths by knifing? Because the number of those fatalities in each instance exceeds the number killed by mass shootings. Auto fatalities far exceed fatalities by mass shootings. Yet, the left and Democrats only see one thing - guns. It is certainly true that these mass killings are shocking. It is true that they have the ability to shake us to our core in a way that these other fatalities do not. (I am not even discussing deaths caused by various medical conditions, with each of the more serious causes numbering in the hundreds of thousands per year.)

These mass killings are so random. They can hit anybody at any time. The victims in San Bernardino included men and women, young and old, and were black, white, Asian and Hispanic. There is, perhaps, a feeling of urgency to do something - anything - to stop these killings from happening.

Said one letter writer to the LA Times: "I don't know whether to hate the gun lobbies, hate terrorists or hate myself for hating anyone." Such confused moral thinking. I know who I hate - the evil terrorist perpetrators of the crime. It has been repeatedly noted that the guns used in San Bernardino were purchased legally. So existing gun laws made no difference. What new gun laws short of confiscation would have made a difference here? No one believes confiscation is possible. We have laws on the books in many states against driving while talking on a hand held phone. The same for texting and driving. Yet people do these things all the time for the sake of their own convenience.

If putting convenience ahead of safe driving laws is not a deterrence, then why would any gun laws deter those motivated by an ideology? Radical Islamists often do not expect to survive their terrorist attacks. If that is the case, no law and no threat of punishment will deter them. But, as this blog has noted previously, the left does not see the world as being a conflict between good and evil. The left actually believes that radical Islamists would not kill people without access to guns. Tell that to the Israelis, who have been suffering one knife attack after the next in the current intifada. Tell that to the victims of ISIS beheadings.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media gets it wrong again. In their 12/3/15 editorial, the LA Times opines: "We need to get rid of most concealed-carry laws and make sure there are no guns on school campuses." Yes, let's tell all the bad guys where no guns are allowed so they know they will meet no resistance when carrying out their evil attacks. Of course, these attacks were not at a school and had nothing to do with concealed-carry issues.

The American people are smarter than the editorial writers of the Times, who reside in their ivory tower. On the day after Thanksgiving (Black Friday) the FBI processed more firearm background checks than they ever have before in a single day - 185,345. People want to protect themselves and their families. And contrary to the Times' opinion, we need more permits to carry concealed weapons for law-abiding citizens. Somebody needs to try to stop the perpetrators while the police are still driving to the scene.