We Need More Criminal Control, Less Gun Control

 Over at the American Thinker today, Charles Tourot has a think piece asking the question After a gang shooting, who should be deprived of guns? In this case, he is writing about the April 3 gang shooting of six people in Sacramento, California. The shooting made national news, so I won't describe it here. But Leftists like Joe Biden made yet again, the illogical leap that the law abiding population should have their guns taken because felons, who can't by law possess guns, continue to commit crimes. The problem is criminal control, not gun control.

I hate to keep brining this up, but nobody seems to be listening. Maybe they will listen to Mr. Tourot, though, so here goes:

The Officeholder Formerly Known as Joe Biden reacted immediately, quite unsurprisingly calling for further restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. For leftists, this non sequitur comes as easily as breathing. Privately owned firearms are anathema to the authoritarian left. American Democrats are newly emboldened by their ability to commit massive election fraud without consequences. It stands to reason that they will seize any opportunity, no matter how bereft of logic, to grab guns. It's what they do.

As we confront yet another assault on our God-given right to defend ourselves, let's imagine how firearms laws yet to be enacted might have protected those killed in Sacramento. Most were non-white people. One was a 57-year-old woman, homeless for years. She was caught in the crossfire, as happens often in a war zone. It's a too common occurrence now in presumably civilized American cities. How might lawmakers have saved their lives had they acted sooner?

I don't what to spoil things, but if you don't want to read the whole thing, let's just say that Tourot takes each suspect in turn, points out that there have long felony records, and therefore by law may not possess a gun of any sort. Yet here they were, out on the street, with weapons that they may not possess, gotten no doubt through yet other illegal means. After all, they couldn't possibly pass an NCIS background check. So, these suspects are not "victims." Let us shed no tears for them. They are brutal killers with no conscience and no regard for the law.

If the three suspects, or others with similar backgrounds, are in fact responsible for the carnage on April 3, no proposed new firearms law could have prevented it. They could not legally buy or possess firearms anywhere in the United States. A highly reliable federal background check system prevented any retailer from selling them a gun. They had guns anyway. They ignored multiple laws when they stole them or bought them on the street, and when they carried them. If they are tried, jurors must consider whether they will ignore those laws again after regaining their freedom. A reasonable jury might easily conclude they will and impose a life sentence.

...snip...

None of this will stop crime. The people affected by the new legislation the administration will propose very rarely commit crimes. Their intent is to protect themselves from violence by the most effective means available: the private ownership and carry of a weapon. They obey the law. They dutifully undergo background checks, apply for permits, and take training courses as required. They present no threat to the public.

Like the armed citizens of any free nation, they do present a threat to those with designs on freedom. It is for that reason that they, not criminals, have legislative targets on their backs.