On December 14, 2106–the 4th anniversary of the heinous attack on Sandy Hook Elementary–President Obama boasted of the implemention of gun controls that will not hinder, much less prevent, another Sandy Hook-style attack.
Writing on Facebook, Obama said:
Two days after that horror, I traveled to Sandy Hook to tell the people of Newtown that they were not alone – that we shared their grief, that they inspired us, and that for them, we would try to change. That’s all still true. We still share their grief. We’re still inspired by the survivors and the families who have worked to make a difference. And we’ve tried to change. My administration has taken action to tighten the background check system and make it more efficient, strengthen enforcement of existing laws, boost gun safety technology, and help more Americans suffering with mental illness get the help they need.
He did not mention that a background check expansion or enhancement–at any level–does nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook-style attack from occurring. Why? Because the Sandy Hook attacker stole his guns rather than go through normal, legal channels to get them. In other words–he criminally acquired the guns he planned to use for criminal purposes.
For these same reasons, Obama’s claim that he “[strengthened] enforcement of existing laws” is moot. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ranked Connecticut gun control laws as the 5th most stringent in the country at the time of the attack, according to NJ.com. But none of these laws mattered because the attacker stepped outside the system to acquire his guns via theft.
And Obama says his administration “has taken action” to “boost gun safety technology.” That is leftist jargon for dumping an untold amount of taxpayer money into government-sponsored smart gun development.
Two types of smart guns are being pursued: those with biometric readers and those which are radio activated by being paired with a watch or bracelet. Gun Controllers have been trying to get the former type to work reliably since the Clinton administration, but it remains theoretical. And even if it did work, there is no reason to believe that Adam Lanza’s mother would have hesitated to program his prints into it; after all, the New York Times reported that she would “go target shooting with her kids.” And if Ms. Lanza had the other kind of smart gun–the kind activated when the radio frequency from a special watch is in close proximity to the handgun–then Adam would have simply needed to steal the watch and gun, rather than just the gun. Thereafter, he could shoot wherever he wanted.
And while Obama’s efforts to “help more Americans suffering with mental illness get the help they need” sounds worthwhile, it is not applicable to the Sandy Hook attack. After all, Adam had a mother who traded her life to be with him; who took him to forensic psychiatrists and other specialists in psychology and even talked of moving all the way across the country, according to The New Yorker, in a bid to relocate to make him happier. He wanted for nothing because his mom was not without resources and she showered him with affection.
Yet Adam attacked. He returned his mother’s love by killing her, he killed innocents at the school, and then he killed himself. Along the way he faced no armed resistance, as the school was a gun-free zone.
The gun-free zone is the elephant in the room that Obama refuses to confront. And that’s s shame, because such zones–coupled with the aforementioned feckless controls–do nothing to prevent an attacker from taking innocent life.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of “Bullets with AWR Hawkins,” a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at firstname.lastname@example.org.