On the subject of gun control, the great Thomas Sowell wrote last November “How can anyone consider it to be either logical or moral to force other people to be defenseless because of a theory without any factual evidence? Yet that is what gun control laws amount to.”
Need any more proof? Just ask a gun control proponent this one question: what specific regulation would actually work in curtailing gun violence?
The correct answer is: none.
National Review reporter Charles Cooke once silenced an entire panel on MSNBC with such a question. The “Morning Joe” Panel of Mark Halperin, Howard Dean and Mika Brzezinski could not name a single policy that would have prevented the Oregon community college shooting.
And when it comes to that one question, policymakers are just as clueless as the pundits.
In the wake of the San Bernardino terror attack, Wall Street Journal reporter Byron Tau asked White House Press Secretary Josh “Not So” Earnest “if there was any shooting that could have been stopped if an assault weapons ban or stricter background checks, both supported by this administration, were enacted?”
And here was the response, where Earnest ignores the question entirely and talks about the need to prevent those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. Note: no recent mass shooters have been on the no-fly list.
Restricting firearms to those on the no-fly list is a “whole ‘nother” issue entirely. As far as Earnest’s comments, he neglects that the majority of people on the no-fly list are there accidentally, and the fact that the list itself may be unconstitutional as it denies due process to anyone included in it.
Not like liberals are going to let the Constitution get in their way, but it is worth noting.
Anyway, try this question out on some gun control advocates and see what kind of answer you get!
[Note: This article was written by The Analytical Economist]