The Economist Leader–The Tucson shootings and the American Blame Game

The tragedy is that gun control is moving in the wrong direction. The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons expired in 2004 and, to his discredit, Mr Obama has done nothing to try to revive it. In 2008 the Supreme Court struck down Washington, DC’s ban on handguns, and in 2010 Chicago’s went the same way; others are bound to follow. In state after state the direction of legislation is to remove restrictions on gun use (those footling bans on bringing weapons into classrooms or churches or bars), rather than to enhance them.

It is fanciful to imagine that guns will ever disappear from America; they are too deeply embedded in its founding myths and its culture. But that does not mean that more effective checks on the mentally unstable are impossible, or that restrictions on the killing power of what can be sold are doomed to failure. Neither of these will happen, though, unless the blame is directed to where it belongs.

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, Politics in General, Psychology, Violence

5 comments on “The Economist Leader–The Tucson shootings and the American Blame Game

  1. Br. Michael says:

    The article uses the very same propaganda and misleading words that it purports to deplore.

    The use of the pejorative term “assaoult weapon” to mean a common semi-automatic firearm. The deliberate intent being to cause confusion between semi-automatic firearms and fully automatic firearms ie machine guns.

    The use of the term “reasonable gun control” which presumes that the level of gun control proposed is in fact reasonable.

    The refusal to admit that the purpose of civilian gun ownership is a check on governmental power and that it was anticipated that arms carried by civilians would be of the same level of effectiveness as that carried by the regular army.

    Faith in governments when in fact governments have killed more of their own people than any other agency.

    The pre-supposition that gun bans work, when in fact they only ensure that the murderer is more likely to face no opposition. A person bent on murder is not going to be influenced by declarations that he is in a gun free zone.

  2. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    [blockquote]The first amendment protects free speech even more firmly than the second protects guns…[/blockquote]
    Huh…what…oh, never mind. It’s just more stupid ramblings by the anti-gun/anti-freedom radical Left. The cluelessness of the wacky liberal elitests is almost amusing…almost.

  3. Creedal Episcopalian says:

    [blockquote] restrictions on the killing power of what can be sold are doomed to failure[/blockquote]

    Especially when the device in question happens to be manufactured in Europe.

  4. Dave B says:

    The shooter, Loughner, was insane. There were many indications of his instablity including multiple run ins with the police and campus security. Why didn’t law enforcement notify gun shops etc in the area of his potential for violence or why wasn’t he put on a watch list? Loughner bought the ammunition the day of the shooting and was turned down once. Why weren’t Loughner’s parents (whom he lived with) watching him? When Loughner ran from his dad why didn’t his dad notify the police? Oh well common sense only goes so far..

  5. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    Good call #3!