Joe Biden Waves the Bloody Shirt

Yesterday The American Spectator published my article about the massacre at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. After it was published, Texas officials announced that an armed police officer had been wounded trying to keep the killer from entering the school.

Since that announcement cut to the heart of my argument against gun-free zones, I banged out an emergency rewrite and sent it to the AmSpec. But, before the rewrite went live online, those same officials changed their story. Their current version is that no police officer was at the school, the front door was unlocked and, to all intents and purposes, Robb Elementary was an unprotected gun-free zone.

So the AmSpec junked the rewrite and stayed with the original article.

All of this by way of saying that, as of now, nobody knows for sure what happened. The story may change yet again. Please keep that in mind as you read the article.

It takes a particularly contemptible brand of cynicism to cold-bloodedly exploit the slaughter of innocent children to promote a political agenda. Yet that is precisely what President Joe Biden and his amen corner in the corporate media have done by using the horrifying and senseless massacre at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, to trumpet their demands for more gun control.

Biden and his media chorus have shamelessly attempted to manipulate the nation’s shock and raw grief into support for their campaign against lawful gun ownership. Despite the overwhelming historical record to the contrary, they proclaim that even more legal restrictions on purchasing and possessing firearms will somehow prevent others from acting out their murderous schemes.

But when and where has gun control ever worked to thwart predators intent on mayhem? Has it worked in the United Kingdom, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the free world? If so, then how to explain the massacres at the Dunblane School in Scotland (17 victims), Hungerford in England (31 victims), and other mass shootings? And how to explain the daily and widespread use of guns by that country’s criminals?

Has it worked in Chicago, New York, or Washington, which have some of our highest gun murder rates despite their draconian restrictions on firearms ownership? Did Connecticut’s strict, gun-hostile laws save the children massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary?

In short, can the proponents of gun control point to a single jurisdiction where gun laws have worked other than to burden or disarm law-abiding citizens?

For example, the Uvalde killer reportedly purchased his firearms from a federally licensed dealer. This required him to verify in writing and under penalty of law that, among other things, he was not under criminal indictment; a convicted criminal; a fugitive from justice; a drug addict or user of controlled substances; an adjudicated “mental defective”; someone who had been committed to a mental institution; or someone subject to a domestic abuse restraining order.

All of the foregoing sworn information had to have been checked against the FBI’s records before the sale was completed.

But within days of undergoing this process, he used those legally purchased guns to slaughter his victims. Which raises the question: do legally mandated background checks and restrictions on gun ownership have any real-life material impact on the possession of firearms by criminals?

In January 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a report titled “Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016.” It provides a statistical analysis of where and how state and federal prison inmates obtained firearms that they either possessed or used in the commission of their crimes.

Read the Whole Article