Gun Control

Administration Officials Say It's 'Impossible' to Know Whether Obama's Warmed-Over Gun Controls Would Have Stopped the San Bernardino Massacre

No, it isn't.

|

Family Guy

Summarizing the gun control measures President Obama is officially unveiling today, The New York Times reports that "officials said it was impossible to predict whether the new directives would have made any difference in recent shootings, such as the one in San Bernardino, Calif." Barring a time machine to aid us in exploring alternative histories, I don't think predict is the right verb here. But you get the idea: Obama's underlings are modestly conceding that it's not clear whether his proposals, had they already been implemented, would have prevented the San Bernardino massacre or other recent mass shootings.

Those unnamed officials are not quite modest enough, since it actually is clear that an expanded background check requirement, a more complete database of people disqualified from owning firearms for psychiatric reasons, and better reporting of lost guns would not have stopped the attack in San Bernardino. That's because the perpetrators did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records, one of them actually passed background checks, and none of the guns they used was stolen.

In fact, none of the mass shootings that have grabbed headlines in the last few years would have been prevented by the gun controls proposed in response to them, and Obama's new list of warmed-over ideas does not break any new ground in that respect. Instead of stating that point clearly, as Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler was honest enough to do, the Times suggests that a bunch of demonstrably ineffective measures might magically combine to achieve a result none could on its own.

Similarly, in a story last August about Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe's renewed push for gun control following the televised double murder in Roanoake, the Times claimed it was "unclear" whether "the measures Mr. McAuliffe advocates"—laws limiting handgun purchases to one per month and requiring background checks for private gun sales—"would have kept the Roanoke suspect, Vester Lee Flanagan, from purchasing the Glock handgun he used to kill [Alison] Parker and [Adam] Ward." It was not at all unclear, since Flanagan used just one gun, which he bought from a Virginia dealer after a background check that he passed because he did not have a disqualifying record.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Obama Pushes Gun Control, Saudi Arabia Cuts Diplomatic Ties With Iran, Latest on Oregon Standoff

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That’s because the obvious answer is that this new gun grab proposal has nothing to do with stopping any gun violence, but with disarming an uppity populous that these fascists feel should heel to their betters.

  2. …it actually is clear that an expanded background check requirement, a more complete database of people disqualified from owning firearms for psychiatric reasons, and better reporting of lost guns would not have stopped the attack in San Bernardino.

    Yes, but in the extra time it took them to submit to the check, a bus might have come barreling down the hill and taken them out. Or, a paper cut from the forms might have become infected, causing one of them to lose a trigger finger. Or, instead of Jews, the frustration from the bureaucracy might have made them change from targeting coworkers to occupying a shack in Oregon.

    1. #OCCUPYSHACK

      I think you have it, Fist!

  3. What is not unclear is that President Obama is #doingsomething, and that is all that matters. Something, which is something we must do.

    1. Exactly. Once you do something, the problem is solved and you can move on.

    2. FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities

      Make Our Communities something something fill this bit in later.

      OT: I bet if you checked your email, someone said hi to you recently. Just this funny feeling I’ve got, not sure why.

      1. Make Our Communities….. Great Again!

        It all comes full circle.

    3. He’s trying to SEMINT HIZ LEGUSY

    4. LOL

  4. “…It was not at all unclear,…”

    Lefty newsrag lies! Gets caught! Nothing happens.

  5. Sort of like how it is impossible to ever really know the motives of the shooters in San Bernadino or how we can never really know just how many millions of jobs the porkulus created or saved.

    Poor Obama, the world can never really know the full scale of his wonderfulness.

    1. I saw a derpbook meme the other day claiming that Obama got Iran to “dismantle their nuclear stockpile” and crowing about how it is just another in his long record of “victories”. I wonder if these people are just flat out lying or if they are actually so delusional they believe what they are saying.

      1. I think some are flat out lying, some of the others are delusional. Sadly, a third group exists: people who are repeating what they deep down suspect to be untrue in hopes that it will become true.

        1. The third group have so much of their personal identity and self worth invested in the idea that they were a part of “history” and doing this great thing in helping to elect Obama, they can never face reality.

          1. Some of them have Obama placemats .

            It is like a cult.

            1. Wow, that woman is beyond pathetic.

      2. There is another Derpbook meme about how Obama “saved America” despite facing incredible racism” and such. God those idiots will believe anything.

        1. God those idiots will believe anything.

          They really will. I am tempted to make up a really outrageous Obama meme claiming something like “thanks to Obama’s leadership there have been 57% fewer earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other natural disasters, but he gets no credit because of racism” and see how many progtards fall for it.

          1. I like that idea. Have a picture of Bush with “12 major hurricanes hit landfall during my administration” and then a picture of Obama on the other half of the page with the caption “didn’t have a single one during mine”. I bet those idiots would share that.

            1. That is a good idea-it would definitely work. If you have some time to kill please give it a shot.

      3. I’d worry about what they either sniffing, injecting or smoking….

  6. I say we just turn over all firearm manufacturing and distribution to the Federal government. What do you say Roberts?

    1. We can call it a “tax” if that will help.

      1. TaxAmeicana.

      2. Claim it has something to do with Obamacare and Roberts will do all sorts of legal acrobatics to make sure it’s okay.

  7. if only there were a diagnosis for doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

  8. It’s, like, everything is possible, man. With more mandatory background checks, maybe the woman would have drowned in a pool and the man would have ODed on tylenol. You don’t know that that wouldn’t have happened.

    1. If it saves just one life MJGreen, just one life…

    2. We could have avoided Pearl Harbor if only there were more background checks!!!!

  9. Similarly, in a story last August about Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe’s renewed push for gun control following the televised double murder in Roanoake, t

    Give them what they voted for good and hard Terry.

  10. All they’re doing is making the mentally ill another target for government/police aggression.

    They’re intent on creating another class of criminals.

    The distinction between someone with depression or bi-polar or PTSD or whatever will be blurred if not erased.

    You’re all crazy now and it wouldn’t surprise me if moving down the line the government reclassifies what constitutes mentally ill.

    Nurse Ratchet lives on.

    1. Did she stick it in crazy, you think?

    2. You’re all crazy now and it wouldn’t surprise me if moving down the line the government reclassifies what constitutes mentally ill.

      I would assume that is the ultimate goal. You don’t agree that white privilege exists and we live in a patriarchy? Mentally ill! You think you need a gun to be safe? Mentally fucking ILL!!

      1. Thinking you need a gun to be safe is a sign of unfounded paranoia, a cardinal sign of several mental disorders which, obviously, should disqualify you from getting a gun.

        1. Believing that the government does not have the best interests of The People in mind at all times = “severe paranoid delusions”

          Questioning some aspect of climate change or the political response to it = “chronic delusional psychosis”

        2. Thinking you need a gun to be safe is a sign of unfounded paranoia, a cardinal sign of several mental disorders which, obviously, should disqualify you from getting a gun.

          I hear wanting someone to stick a gold star on your chest can be a good sign of mental retardation as well.

      2. I would assume that is the ultimate goal. You don’t agree that white privilege exists and we live in a patriarchy? Mentally ill! You think you need a gun to be safe? Mentally fucking ILL!!

        If you don’t worship government as a god, you’re mentally ill.

      3. Own a wood chipper…
        Mentally ill

    3. You’re all crazy now and it wouldn’t surprise me if moving down the line the government reclassifies what constitutes mentally ill.

      Hey, it worked for the Soviet Union, that socialist worker’s paradise!

    4. You’re all crazy now and it wouldn’t surprise me if moving down the line the government reclassifies what constitutes mentally ill.

      “Mentally ill” already doesn’t mean anything other than “socially nonconforming.”

      1. Not sure about that.

        This condition runs in my family on the paternal side and it’s real. Very real.

        Whatever label they care to stick.

        1. My daughter is socially conforming and then some. Extremely outgoing, creative, congenial – you know, ‘with it’. But she has strange anxieties.

          Now whether this falls under the realm of ‘mentally ill’ is another matter but one we’re monitoring.

          My sister on the other hand has been dealing with depression all her life and never was much for conformity. A true anarchist in her mind. Growing up she was like the nutty kid in The Breakfast Club.

          Then there are my two aunts. Hoo-boy. And the cases of autism.

          We got it all!

          1. Off to the camps! You too, just to be sure.

    5. One of my favorite parts is that mental illness has been a HUGE part of the “ableism” shit in SJW circles. Most of them claim to have some debilitating mental health issue and yell at others to check their “ableist” privilege.

      So, their response to a lack of privilege is… to give the able-bodied and able-mind-ed(that one didn’t work as well) more privilege?

      Let me put it this way: There’s a certain group of mentally ill women who just will keep winding up in horrible, often abusive romantic relationships. I’ve just met too many girls who keep ending up with piece of shit guys- not all are violent, but they tend to be junkie crazy losers at a certain point.

      You’re telling me its a good idea to disarm women who may be breaking up with that? Because, like, junkies have NEVER broken into an exes place to steal at TV and something went wrong.

      1. You seem to want them to think beyond stage one. Check your abilities. Ableist.

    6. I believe the Soviet Union and Mao’s “People’s Republic” were experts at this. Oh, and throw in Nazi Germany to boot. It’s still going on in Russia and the “People’s Republic” hasn’t disappeared. Only Germany seems to have been cured.

  11. You can make all of these arguments to anti-gunners and liberals, and you’ll only get mocked because “you don’t want to do something” about the problem.

    That’s key–something bad happens, you have to do something. It doesn’t matter what. Just do something, or you obviously support the bad thing happening again.

    And once you do something, you can feel good and move on. That’s the important thing to the left.

    1. Clearly, something must be done. This thing here is something, therefore we must do it!

      1. Throw the premise back at them. Point at that criminal violence is at an all-time low since 1993. Something has already been done, and it worked.

  12. The point of these gun-grabbing proposals isn’t to stop any mass shootings.

    The point is to otherize gun owners and change the culture to dissuade people from owning guns.

    They want to turn gun owners into the modern equivalent of cigarette smokers – people who are so ostracized from polite company that they have to apologize for their actions.

    1. And they expect to succeed?

      Somehow, I think it is a task as “easy” as changing the culture to accept grown men who like to pop 13-year-old girls’ cherries.

  13. The New York Times reports that “officials said it was impossible to predict whether the new directives would have made any difference in recent shootings, such as the one in San Bernardino, Calif.”

    I wonder who these “officials” are. The White House janitors, maybe?

    1. They’re the same officials who predict what the average temperature will be 30 years from now.

  14. Here’s another prediction.

    If the next election is decided on gun control, the Senate will stay in in the hands of the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is going to be one sad and sorry monkey come November.

    1. Which begs the question of why Obama would push gun control when it is plain and clear that criminal homicide (as well as other forms of criminal violence) is at an all-time low since 1993.

      1. Obama pushes gun control despite how it impacts the Democratic Party in the upcoming election because he doesn’t give a shit about the political fate of the Democratic Party once he’s no longer in office.

        And there’s something to be said–from a Machiavellian perspective–about not holding back just because you’re in office. You make hay while the sun shines. He isn’t going to be able to do this stuff once he’s no longer in office.

        What is he supposed to do? Hold back so Hillary can get into office? And then what is she supposed to do? Hold back so the next Democrat can get into office? When does anything start actually getting done then?

        1. You beat me to it. Obama cares about Obama, not the Democrats. Look at how the party has fared while he’s been in office. He doesn’t care, except to the extent that it interferes with his getting to do what he wants.

      2. I should also point out (and I suspect John can appreciate this) that Obama moving hard to the left was predictable once he no longer had to face reelection. That was an excellent reason to vote for Romney in the last election. Yeah, Romney would have brought his own new flavor of hell. But Obama is bent on doing things–specifically because they can’t be undone.

        Is there a Republican President that will undo–in his first term–what Obama is doing on mental health and gun control? If a future Republican undoes this and any crazy person shoots someone else in the interim before the next election, that Republican would probably lose reelection. It would be political suicide. Obama doesn’t care about political suicide. And he doesn’t care about the Democrats. His term is up–and that makes him far more dangerous than he’s ever been before.

        “Woe to you on earth and sea, for the devil comes with great wrath knowing that his time is short”

        —-Revelation 13

  15. It’s kind of hard for 2A advocates to have their voices heard when standing in the empty graves of a victims that used a firearm in self defense. Helloooooo.

  16. You people are being obtuse and mean. BHO was being uber-meta, as he watched the Butterfly Effect last night and was blown away. Just blown away.

    1. On the downside, now he won’t leave his bedroom for fear of accidentally causing the extinction of humanity.

      1. How is that a downside?

  17. The New York Times reports that “officials said it was impossible to predict whether the new directives would have made any difference in recent shootings, such as the one in San Bernardino, Calif.”

    That’s an interesting admission by itself. Consider the following: what would you say about a proposed public policy the effects of which would be impossible to predict? Would you still support such a proposal and if so, under what theory? What would be the point of imposing a policy when its effects are “impossible to predict”? What would then prompt a person to propose the policy in the first place?

    This just tells me that the government is becoming progressively populated by people incapable of formulating coherent ideas, probably because that is what the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem Dat Teeches Kudz to Red an Writ was meant for.

    1. Either that or the officials are being brazen in their dishonesty, which the NYT is simply not willing to point out because they agree with using lies to push their anti-gun agenda. Take your pick.

    2. “What would you say about a proposed public policy the effects of which would be impossible to predict? Would you still support such a proposal and if so, under what theory?”

      I would still support a proposal to sacrifice an unknown amount of our standard of living for an unknown period of time–under the theory that polar bears are very precious according to scientists and climate change deniers are a bunch of homophobic rednecks.

      1. If polar bears went extinct, how does it affect me?

        1. Oh, you homophobic redneck, you!

  18. Gun grabbers lie their asses off. And the sky is blue, water wet, etc.

    1. Their dishonesty and invincible ignorance is only exceeded by that of Holocaust deniers- and not by much.

      1. *steps up to the plate and swings for the fences*

        You know who else?…

        1. A truly impressive reversal of the Godwin, because you know who wouldn’t deny the Holocaust?

  19. It’s impossible to know anything, really, except what we know.

    What is truth? …outside those things we know are true?

    That’s science.

  20. better reporting of lost guns would not have stopped the attack in San Bernardino. That’s because the perpetrators did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records, one of them actually passed background checks, and none of the guns they used was stolen.

    Even if they had been stolen it wouldn’t have helped prevent the shooting. If reporting stolen goods to California authorities did anything, I’d have another pair of hiking boots, several pairs of workout clothes, a Nalgene, and my girlfriend would have her backpack and glasses. That stuff is still all as missing as the alt-text.

  21. As someone who deals with depression and GAD, has been to a psych hospital for it (and therefore can’t own guns in Cali for another 3 years)… I am BEYOND pissed at both the Administration, and the gun rights movement (they’re being okay about the current one, but I swear it was after the last mass shooting where the head of the NRA threw the mentally ill under the bus. Like, historically, many of the more mainstream groups suck on this). Like, cool, good to know that because of shit that genetics decided to bestow on me, my constitutional rights can be abridged.

    Because clearly, I fucking at some point said, “Depression? You mean I’ll want to kill myself AND I’ll lose constitutional rights? SIGN ME UP!”

    And of course its not like groups like NAMI display any balls. Seriously, are there any good mental illness awareness groups/charities that give a fuck about 2nd amendment rights?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.