We all stared at our TV’s on Thursday night taking in the horror before us, completely engulfed in anger at the perpetrator who stole innocent lives. Not one of us watches such a scene unfold without thinking, “What can be done?” However, many immediately attribute guilt by association to those who own guns throughout the United States. As heartbreaking as the situation is, forming policies in a tornado of emotion will only lead to disaster.

Our President praised other countries for taking measures to limit gun violence:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours. Great Britain. Australia. Countries like ours.

I would point out two things concerning the above statement.

A) It’s scary to think that our President praised a nation that conducted a mass confiscation of firearms from their citizens.

B) Great Britain is not a low-crime utopia. While Our criminal system encompasses a large variation of crimes under broad descriptions, the UK does not. In 2014, sexual offenses recorded by the police rose by 37% in the UK. However, under national statistics the U.S. ranks higher due to how crimes are calculated by country. Since 1967, the UK calculations exclude any cases that do not result in conviction, nor any cases prosecuted under the grounds of self-defense. Perspective: in 2012 we had 14,827 homicides, only 7,133 arrests were made for those homicides; the number of convictions are even less. Rape numbers would be even more drastic due to the number of cases that don’t end in conviction. If we adjust our numbers to reflect their calculation method, women and men (especially women) are much safer in the United States than in the UK. Now, consider the fact that the UK has a population of 64 million, and the U.S. has a population of 316 million (roughly). America, under the systems of Great Britain or Australia, would put citizens – especially women – in horrific danger. Liberals should check their female empowerment agenda, because the real “war on women” is the attack on gun ownership.

Yet people still push the narrative that more laws will keep criminals from owning guns, or  – like our President – that getting rid of guns would end in a more peaceful society. One of them being Mark Halperin. Thankfully, Charles C.W. Cooke called him to the carpet, asking him to name just one piece of legislation that would stop any of the recent mass shootings. See below:

See, for some reason if you don’t agree with the President’s comments, you must wish to do nothing. The guilt shifting and fear mongering is the unrelenting dyspepsia of the conversation that refuses to go away so that we can discuss the issues like adults.

“This is not a competition to see who is the most vexed, this is public policy debate,” Cooke said, referring to Joe Biden’s reaction to Thursday’s deadly college shooting. “Joe Biden doesn’t know how to fix this problem; I don’t know how to fix this problem; I think it’s fair to say you don’t know how to fix this problem.”

Cooke continued, “The way they talk is as if they have the answer and there are just these…forces in the country that say, ‘no, no, no,’ even though somewhere deep down they know their legislation will work. That is simply not the case. It’s far more complicated than that.”

The facts are, no one has proposed a single piece of legislation that would stop mass shootings.

The argument for universal background checks is that guns can come in from other states, but that is an anti-crime measure. No mass shooter seems to get their guns in any sense that would intersect with private sales. They either buy them from a dealer or get them illegally.

Obama also wanted a ban on assault rifles, that doesn’t seem to have much of an effect either; the shooter had three hand guns…

I would recommend reading two articles by Cooke, both shed light on the issues facing the left in terms of their policy ideas concerning gun control:

An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment

The Right to Bear Arms Is Not a Relic of the Slave-Owning South

Not only did the President blatantly lie to the people of this nation, he also once again pushed for changes that would not have saved one child in Sandy Hook, nor (most likely) one person in Roseburg Oregon. Yet if you point this out, their story is always the same, and it must mean that you don’t care about the victims. It’s low, it’s revolting, and it’s untrue.

The rhetoric never changes:

“What can we do?”
“Something!”
“But what?”
“This!” 
“But that wouldn’t have stopped the shooting.”
“Okay, this!” 
“That wouldn’t have stopped the shooting either.”
“Well then, this!” 
“That’s already a law and didn’t stop the shooting.”
“Well, at least I care!”

Leftist feel that their morality level is heightened above that of the average gun owner because they feel they’re proposing a fix, even if it’s worthless. Apparently pushing back against worthless ideas is a sign that you care less, and it’s the same issue we see with universal healthcare; if you say it can’t work effectively, you “just don’t care about everyone.” If a policy or piece of legislation puts citizens in danger – worse yet in graves – your “good intentions” become about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. If leftists had their way, and the murder and rape rates were to rise, they’d ring their hands, shrug their shoulders, and loudly proclaim, “Well, at least we tried!” Or they’d pretend like the disaster doesn’t exist. Example: See Chicago.