Gun ban proponents would have us believe that they’re experts on firearms and firearms policy. And indeed, you would expect that someone voicing an opinion on a particular subject would actually have some expertise in that field; especially if they’re going beyond merely typing away on the Internet and are demanding legislation. But recent events should, by now, make it clear to the casual observer that these people don’t have any idea what they’re doing. Worse yet, their ignorance is getting people killed.
This goes beyond the intellectual laziness of someone like Sen. Kevin de Leon or Rep. Diana DeGette. They can’t even be bothered to learn the subject’s terminology. Instead, I’m talking about the objective evidence that anti-gun policies just don’t work. A demagogue like de Leon doesn’t care about results. But other gun control supporters supposedly do.
Let’s look at their most recent, headline grabbing failure: The Elliot Rodgers rampage in Isla Vista, California.
First, and most importantly, let’s remember where this happened: California. This State is home to some of the Nation’s most draconian gun laws. Gun banners of both parties have gotten nearly every policy they’ve asked for in this State for the last five decades. Waiting periods? Check. Magazine restrictions? Check. Assault weapon bans? Check. A ban on the sale of new handgun designs? Check. Gun rationing? Check. Open carry ban? Check. Concealed carry all but banned? Check. “No” is a word they’ve heard so infrequently that I wonder if they even remember what it means!
And yet…
Despite being allowed nearly every anti-gun law they’ve asked for, the gun banners cannot explain how Elliot Rodgers managed to shoot and kill 3 people that day. (And they really don’t want to talk about how the other three fatalities were killed with a knife. Are those three somehow less dead than the others?) He followed all of their gun laws. He didn’t use high-capacity magazines. Instead, he bought a bunch of CA-legal 10-round magazines. His handguns were certified as “not unsafe” by the State. He followed the State’s 10-day waiting period. He filled out all of the paperwork. He did all of the things that the gun grabbers promised would make us safer and prevent the murders he committed.
And yet…
So how are the gun banners responding to their latest failure? By demanding more of the same! Apparently, their failed policies failed because there simply aren’t enough of them on the books. Somehow, and I’m not sure how else to put this but, more failure will lead to less failure. Or so they promise. Again.
One example of a fresh failure that’s supposed to remedy the earlier failures is SB53. This is the latest ammunition registration scheme from State Senator Kevin “This is my stern and serious face” de Leon.
He is proposing a statewide version of a law that has already failed elsewhere; including in local jurisdictions like Pasadena and Los Angeles. Both of those cities passed laws requiring records of ammo sales. Pasadena had the guts to admit that they were simply collecting a mountain of useless data. They abandoned the law when they realized that it was a failure. Los Angeles is still collecting their useless data and stubbornly clinging to the belief that it will someday be of use. To date, there are no known prosecutions from their ammo sales data nor from any other data collected in other states. This policy is an objective failure. But despite the evidence, Sen. de Leon and his Senate colleagues passed SB53 and sent it along to the Assembly.
Another failed policy, and this one’s becoming a classic, is the continued demand for an “assault” weapon ban. The gun banners would like you to think that every crime in 
the country is committed with these “menacing weapons of war”. But years of actual evidence show that criminals simply don’t use them. Hands and feet can claim a higher body count than “assault” weapons.
Is it obvious yet?
Gun control advocates simply do not know what they’re doing. They are utterly unqualified to design public policy on firearms. Years of their policy initiatives have yet to yield a single success. So why should they be allowed to continue to dictate policy? Plainly, they should not.
