The Washington Post has published an interesting report about how so-called “gun violence” is “dividing America,” at a time when that division is clearly illustrated in the Pacific Northwest with campaigns in both Oregon and Washington that are pure gun control.
That is to say neither the effort to outright ban so-called “assault weapons” in Oregon and restrictively regulate them in neighboring Washington can even laughingly be considered “gun safety” campaigns.
The WaPo story says there are more suicide-by-firearm deaths in Republican regions, while “In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death.” The report also contends that “there were slightly more gun deaths in Republican areas than Democratic-leaning ones in the decade from 2007 to 2016.”
“The disparity in death rates was even greater — 5.7 per 100,000 in Republican-leaning counties, versus 4.7 in Democratic-leaning counties — due to the higher total population in counties won by Hillary Clinton in 2016,” the story said.
But the article also included this: “Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.”
Further, the newspaper notes, “In almost all cases, guns kill or injure more children, teens and people in Democratic districts. Mass shootings, which vary widely in number depending how restrictive your definition is, occur more often in Democratic districts.”
And there was this: “Of the 15 largest metropolitan areas in the country, 12 voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Her margin in most exceeded 27 percentage points. The Democratic base, quite simply, experiences higher murder rates.”
All of this brings us around to a popular alleged remedy for all this violence. It’s the “enhanced background check,” which – if one accepts the explanation of the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility – appears less like a check than it does a list of prior restraints on firearm ownership. In its own words, the Alliance defined its position while supporting an “Enhanced Assault Weapon Background Check” bill that was introduced during the last session of Washington’s Legislature. Here’s what they said.
“This policy will:
- require that someone must be over 21 years old
- require additional training for anyone seeking to purchase an Assault Weapon
- require purchasers to state a clear, lawful reason and use for the Assault Weapon
- require renew the background check each year to ensure they are still eligible to possess the weapon.”
What does an age limit have to do with determining someone’s criminal background?
What does a training requirement remotely have to do with determining whether someone can legally purchase a firearm?
Where in either the state or federal constitutions does it say that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to providing a justification to own and use a firearm?
It might be arguable that during the course of a year, somebody might commit a crime that disqualifies them as a lawful firearm owner. But that would show up in a background check, anyway. This “enhanced” version is simply a disguise for more gun control.
Considering what the Washington Post has revealed, maybe there should be more restrictions on Democrats in regions controlled by their party, than on anyone, anywhere else.