On July 12, The Washington Post seized on the FBI’s admission of a “mistake” in allowing Dylann Roof to get a gun and reported that new gun laws are needed for America, even if those gun laws do not work.
They did this by moving away from a focus on the FBI’s “mistake” and subtly suggesting that Roof passed a background check because of a loophole in the system. They even blamed Congress by criticizing the failure to pass more gun control in recent years.
Along the way, the WaPo demonized guns as “shockingly efficient killing machines” that need more and more regulation.
The WaPo‘s exact words: “It’s entirely appropriate to talk about imposing basic gun laws in the wake of any mass shooting. All of them underline the fact that guns are shockingly efficient killing machines that no responsible government would ignore.”
They then admitted that new control laws might not even work, but suggested that it’s no reason to forgo implementing them. They wrote, “Even if better gun laws wouldn’t prevent every rampage or end street crime, they would certainly cut down on gun deaths from all sorts of causes by making it tougher to obtain and use firearms illegally.”
That statement represents a quasi-honest admission coupled with an assumption that’s absolutely unsupportable.
The admission is that new gun control laws might not “prevent every rampage or end street crime.” This has been born out through the years with background checks, as high-profile public attackers have passed those checks to get their guns then used those guns to take innocent life. It has also been born out on the streets of Chicago and in California where universal background checks, gun registration, and a “high capacity” magazine ban did not stop Elliot Rodger from carrying out his Santa Barbara attack nor did it stop Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez from allegedly shooting and killing Kathryn Steinle on July 1.
The WaPo‘s solution to these gun control failures? Pass more gun control.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com.