In the immediate aftermath of a mass public shooting, liberals immediately call for gun control. There’s no delay in blaming the shooting on Republicans, the NRA, or a lack of gun control, before we even know a single detail about the shooter and the details of the attack.
It’s always different when there’s a likely Islamist attack. Only then do we have to be patient and reasonable, and wait for all the details to come in. Even then, liberals somehow manage to politicize the attack by acknowledging that while the attack was terrible, the Islamophobia it’ll create will be even worse!
Take a look at some of the stories that began circulating following the capture of NJ and NYC bombing suspect Ahmad Khan Ramadi. “New Wave of Islamophobia Feared After US Bomb Suspect Charged” read one headline. “After NYC Bombs, We Need to Talk About Islamo-racism” read another.
Hard not to see that coming – but never did I think the bombing would lead to renewed calls for gun control (is any tragedy NOT about gun control anymore?)
Via PJ Media
The Senate minority whip told reporters on Capitol Hill today that the Minnesota mall stabbings and the New York/New Jersey bombings were “sad reminders that this Congress has done nothing — nothing to prevent dangerous people from acquiring guns and explosives to carry out future attacks on Americans.”
Outside of a closed policy luncheon, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Republicans “have seen multiple opportunities come and go to bring forward and pass bipartisan legislation to prevent terrorists from buying firearms and explosives, closing the so-called terror gap loophole.”
“All of which have been defeated by the Republican majority. Congress still spends so much time and energy debating whether a bill would’ve stopped the last attack that we lose sight on how we stop the next attack,” Durbin said. “This bill, as well as bipartisan background checks, will stop dangerous people from getting their hands on the weapons of war.”
The Washington Post reported that federal officials said the bombs were constructed of unregulated, commonly available materials such as Tannerite, black powder, Christmas-light fuses, and cell phone detonators.
Now, Ahmad was armed and was arrested following a shootout with police (where two were shot), but he didn’t commit his failed attempt at terrorism with it. If an attack with explosives warrants gun control, what doesn’t anymore?
[Note: This post was written by The Analytical Economist]