To the Editor:
The cover photo on the April 2 issue of Time magazine shows five of the “survivors” from the Parkland, Florida high school. Their facial expressions run from dour to angry. The index page, however, shows them at a fast food joint yukking it up at lunchtime.
Only one of these “student activists” is old enough to vote yet their goal is to let “the adults know that we’re cleaning up their mess.” The media has fallen in love with these photogenic, articulate, well-coached – some would say indoctrinated – teenagers. And woe to any talking heads who criticize them. Fox News’ Laura Ingraham had the audacity to tell David Hogg to stop whining about not getting into some of the prestigious colleges to which he had applied
Fawning reporters and talk show hosts would have us believe their March for Our Lives and other demonstrations were youthful, spontaneous productions fueled by social media. Writing in The Washington Post, sociologist Dana Fisher observed that “only about 10 percent of the participants [in the Washington, D.C. event] were under 18.”
They are also well-funded by groups like billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization and celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney. While anti-gunners berate the money the NRA spends defending the Second Amendment, Bloomberg is said to be the seventh richest man in the world and Winfrey is a billionaire. Their combined net worth probably exceeds that of all 5 million NRA members together.
Time lists six gun control measures it believes to be “commonsense” reforms. First is to “make owning a gun like driving a car.” The problem with this analogy is that getting a driver’s license is a permissive process. If you pass the tests you will be issued a license. Any system of licensing gun owners would be punitive. The law in Rhode Island says police chiefs shall issue a concealed carry permit to any suitable person upon showing of proper need. Yet some refuse to even accept an application.
Enacting “the right restrictions” is next on the list. The article claims “background checks for all private purchases and restriction on multiple purchases were associated with lower rates of crime.” However, economist David Lott, who studies firearms statistics extensively, found that states with expanded background checks experienced 49 percent higher murder rates and 75 percent more armed robberies.
Time thinks that gun manufacturers should be subject to civil suit by “victims of gun violence”. This flies in the face of the tort law concept of assumption of risk and would put the gun industry out of business in this county. Remington, manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle used at Sandy Hook that is being sued, has declared bankruptcy. Winchester is long gone and its trademark owned by a European company. This suits the anti-gunners just fine.
Their other purported solutions to “gun violence” include involving doctors to “educate families about gun safety” and funding research particularly by the Centers for Disease Control because, you see, we have an “epidemic of gun crime.”
Finally, entrepreneurs have systems that use biometrics “to identify a weapon’s rightful owner while locking it out for anyone else.” Then Time acknowledges, “Such smart guns may not prevent mass shootings with firearms purchased legally.” So, what’s the point?