As President Obama wrapped up his trip to Roseburg, Oregon on Friday trying to politically exploit the tragedy, it’s worth noting some interesting facts about these shootings.
But first, I would like to point out Obama’s lack of credibility with me on the prevention of gun violence. With other policies, he seems to be encouraging violence. Wherever he and his administration could, they have given encouragement to black criminals to resist arrest. Then, in the ensuing conflicts, he has failed to challenge their false narratives, feeding the idea that the cops are racist, or, even if they are black, are out to get them. For example, in response to the incident in Ferguson, he and Eric Holder could have helped greatly in calming the mob by saying that “Hands up, don’t shoot,” never happened. But he didn’t. After the investigation into the Ferguson police department, he and Eric Holder could have told the people that the percentages of detentions of blacks was consistent with statistics around the country, but they didn’t. Instead, they tried to feed the narrative of police racism.
The results of their consistent siding with the mob against the police have been an increase in gun violence in the affected cities, from St. Louis to Baltimore and cities all across the land where the message has gotten through—if blacks resist arrest and accuse the police of anything, this administration has their back.
So in Roseburg we had a black male stoked in his hatred toward society by liberalism. And added to the mix was the disarming of the victims, which experience shows creates an attractive environment for any crazed shooter who wants to kill as many people as possible before being confronted.
Then we have Obama coming in to Roseburg and prating about the rate of mass shootings in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Not so fast. Europe, in spite of generally more restrictive gun laws, has higher rates of mass shootings and other mass murders than the United States. Leading the pack is Norway, with a rate of killings from mass shootings over ten times the rate of the United States; this in spite of the fact of having extremely restrictive gun laws and where even the police are generally unarmed.
Then we have liberals, decrying the level of gun violence in the United States, wanting to ban assault rifles and make it more difficult for people to get guns legally. It’s interesting, therefore, to note a recent report published on Hot Air, analyzing recent numbers (2011) released by the FBI. While the majority of murders are committed with guns, most of those are handguns. Of 12,664 murders in the country in that year, 323 were committed with rifles. On the other hand, 2918, almost 10 times as many, were committed with knives, blunt objects, or bare hands. So banning “assault rifles” would have little impact.
Furthermore, of murders committed with guns, the vast majority of those guns, according to this report, are obtained illegally. There is a thriving black market for guns, and further restricting legal gun sales could only help increase that.
What would have happened had this Roseburg shooter attempted to do what he did in the old wild West? At most he would have shot one other person before being gunned down himself. But most likely, he wouldn’t have even tried what he did. If we relaxed restrictions on the carrying of guns by law-abiding citizens, that would be the reform that would help stem the tide of these mass shootings.
Do you agree? Disagree? I invite you to comment.
Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.
