Name One Gun Law That Would Have Mattered at Umpqua

The outpouring of grief on social media after Thursday’s shooting at Umpqua Community College was interrupted by President Barack Obama’s statement about it.

Some found his words “heartfelt.” To others, Obama’s reaction was entirely predictable–a petulant fit of scolding, in which he tried to shame America and again called for “common-sense gun-safety laws.” He even insisted that the deaths of the innocent were “something we should politicize.”

Can the president, or his supporters, name even one “common sense gun-safety law”–i.e. gun control law–that would have prevented the mass shooting at Umpqua? The answer is no.

That is why gun control efforts failed after the horrific Sandy Hook shooting in 2012.

Some states passed laws restricting the number of bullets in magazines. Yet would-be murderers can always find a way. The killer at Umpqua, for example, reportedly carried four guns.

There is only one common denominator in the recent mass shooting events: the vulnerable nature of the targets. At Umpqua, reports say, there was only one security guard for the entire campus, and he was unarmed.

We don’t need to arm every kindergarten teacher in America, but if there was at least some chance that shooters might encounter one armed person at a school–whether a guard or teacher carrying a concealed weapon–they might think twice.

Aside from rolling back the “gun-free zones” that advertise easy targets, which Obama rejects, is there anything he is proposing? No? Then he is guilty of cheap demagoguery–perhaps to fire up his political base, or just to indulge his narcissism.

If what he really wants to do is repeal the Second Amendment, then good luck to him–let him resign, lest he violate his oath of office, and devote his life to campaigning for that cause. Otherwise, spare the sanctimony.