I understand President Obama’s frustration over another senseless mass shooting, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Terrible . . horrific . . tragic . . . no words can really describe the deep sadness over the loss of life, over a person hurting enough to commit this crime.
But Mr. Obama should not politicize the event by calling for more gun control. Why not? Because it won’t work.
The president, in his news conference a few hours after the Oregon shooting, said the US has more of these crimes than any other developed nation. That depends on how you skew the statistics. I haven’t done the math, but since we have a larger population than almost all the countries he compares us to, we are going to have more total crimes. But we may not have the highest rate as a percentage of population.
Mr. Obama called for “common sense gun laws”. We already have those, so more laws would have to be restrictions/prohibition on the ownership of guns for some or all citizens.
There are many ways to kill and many ways to obtain a gun even if one cannot purchase the weapon legally. The Newtown, Connecticut shooter used his mother’s guns. In Reno a decade or more ago, a woman was convicted of deliberately mowing down people on a downtown sidewalk with her car. The Boston Marathon massacre was committed with homemade bombs. People bent on revenge or with mental illness can be amazingly creative, although that isn’t even necessary. Television crime show plots have more and more bizarre methods of committing murders. The internet has instructions for making bombs.
None the less, I would listen to President Obama’s arguments if he could give a rational explanation as to why the city of Chicago (with extremely strict gun laws) has the 13th highest murder/manslaughter rate of cities over 100,000 population — and more importantly, why he thinks similar laws would work any better nationally.