WAPO LamentsThat "Feelings Based" Anti-Gun Proposals Are Unsuccessful ... But They Got GAME!

Look away from the Confederate flag to what Mr. Roof held in his other hand - The Washington Post:

The Washington Post admits that Gun Control Laws would be unproductive for the pruposes they have been proposed ... prevent "mass shootings":

By Editorial Board June 26

Adding to the feelings of defeat is the sense that many of the gun-control policies that seem politically feasible wouldn’t necessarily have stopped the country’s most spectacular mass shootings. Mr. Lanza used his mother’s gun collection. Mr. Roof apparently didn’t set off alarms in a background check. None of the defeatism is warranted. Mass shootings draw attention to the nation’s relationship with guns. They should spur us to action because they demonstrate the easy, efficient horror that guns are capable of inflicting, and they make us wonder about permissive gun policies.

 .... but they think that Gun Control Laws should be enacted 'anyway', because ...

Public policy can’t prevent every gun death. But it can do a lot more than it is now: make it harder for the mentally ill, family abusers or criminals to obtain and keep firearms; crack down on gun trafficking; require proper gun storage; and reconsider laws that seem to encourage people to use guns in situations they consider threatening. 

The odd thing is,  most of the laws which they seem to espouse have been enacted here and there, with no apparent influence on those "mass shooters" who commit these heinous crimes.

But they still want to enact them universally.



It seems that the Scientific Method holds no credence in Washington.  That idea that if you want to try a new theory, run a test case and see what happens.  If the theory works, explore it.  If it does not achieve the expected result, change the theory and try again.

Unfortunately, the fools at WAPO support trying the same thing over and over, and expecting different results (which is the definition of Insanity).

In all of these "test cases" (local laws passed and enacted), the new infringements not only did not "solve the problem" but indeed the laws inconvenienced only law-abiding citizens.  The crooks and gang-bangers ignored them; the madmen among us obeyed them, then went on to commit their atrocities among the unarmed innocents 'anyway'.  Because the mad and the evil live under the rose until they decide it is time to act out their vile fantasies.

The worst of it is that across America, law-abiding citizens are (reluctantly) acknowledging that new laws will be enacted by the ignorant and the idealistic.

Broadly speaking, the otherwise law-abiding will continue to ignore laws which usurp the Constitution.
The reasoning is that the predatory varmints "... will not comply, so why should I?"

Congress and municipalities can enact all the laws they want, because they know that the electorate considers their political representatives to be 'doing their job' by creating new laws; even if those laws make their constituents less safe, and restrict their freedoms.

Unfortunately, there is a broad spectrum of Americans who believe that laws will make them MORE safe, contrary to all reason and experience.  And the current spectra read The Washington Post and say "Oh yeah, that'll do it!"

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."

Solomon Short