What Gun Law Does S. E. Cupp Want Us to Rethink?

by David Harsanyi at National Review

Monday was the tragic anniversary of the ghastly 2012 massacre of 20 young children and six faculty at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. And though mass shootings account for only a fraction of gun deaths in the United States — which are still at historic lows — the terroristic nature and moral depravity of the Sandy Hook incident makes it especially traumatic. So the instinct to “do something” is understandable.

That’s still no excuse for sophistry.

In another tweet, Cupp links to a performative CNN segment in which she rescinds her NRA membership and implores us to “rethink” our gun laws. What she doesn’t do is offer is any relevant suggestions on how “gun laws” could have stopped a merciless 20-year-old (likely) schizophrenic from murdering others and himself.

Nor does Cupp offer any evidence that “gun laws” were in any way responsible for Sandy Hook. Connecticut had, and has, some of the most stringent gun restrictions in the nation. The anti-gun Gifford Law Center gives the state its second-highest grade after California. It already has things such as “universal” background checks and “assault weapon” bans and red-flag laws. Adam Lanza, whose mental struggles had gone untreated for years — the real problem driving mass shootings — didn’t import his weapons from a red state or buy them at a gun show or plug in a 3D printer and make one. In fact, when Lanza attempted to purchase a rifle, he was rebuffed by existing laws. So, instead, he stole his mother’s .22 rifle, among other firearms, and shot her as she slept and then went on a murder spree. Nancy Lanza had gone through every arduous legal step to acquire those weapons and register them.

So what should we be rethinking? When CNN put on its anti-gun revival after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting — again the work of a mentally troubled young person — the crowd cheered at ideas such as banning “semi-automatic” guns. Most pieces detailing the Sandy Hook shooting wrote about “semi-automatics” as if they were exotic weapons of war rather than the predominant mechanism of all firearms bought in the United States. Is this the kind of law Cupp, who for years was a defender of gun rights, has rethought?

Stripping all Americans of Second Amendment protection to try to stop those who have no inhibitions about killing is the equivalent of stripping American Muslims of their due-process rights because of 9/11. And, actually, Democrats have tried, proposing legislation that would deprive Americans who find themselves on those arbitrarily secret government no-fly lists, assembled with without due process or probable cause, of their gun rights. Is that the kind of rethinking Cupp is talking about?

When someone implores you to stop being a “partisan,” they almost always mean you should think like the other party. I’ve looked at gun laws, incidentally, as Cupp suggests, and I’ve come to the conclusion that states should deregulate, making it far more convenient for moms and dads to obtain firearms so they can defend their families and property. I believe we need national concealed-carry reciprocity so we can stop the abuses against law-abiding gun owners. I’ve rethought my initial reluctance to the idea of teachers carrying firearms in schools, as they have a responsibility to watch over our children. I only hope S. E., who once supported the latter, will join me in pressing for these nonpartisan solutions.