Americans are understandably outraged at another school shooting, sparking immediate calls by many for more gun control. It’s disappointing that few of these same folks are expressing equal amounts of indignation at the FBI, which has confessed to failing to follow its own protocols upon receiving a credible and specific tip. This is government failure at its worst and tragically it happens all too often. Dylan Roof, who killed 9 blacks in a church in South Carolina in 2015, passed a background check he shouldn’t have as a result of similar FBI bungling.
It’s healthy to debate whether additional gun regulations would prevent future shootings or whether existing restrictions should be tightened. We should all want our government to do a better job of protecting its citizens. But it’s no good having increased gun control if our government is mediocre at best and incompetent at worst.
Too many of the people calling for more gun control are also advocates of ever bigger government yet don’t appreciate the incompatibility of these positions. They can usually be found supporting things like universal health care, free college education and more government regulation of our lives.
Government is already doing so much that it’s not much good at anything. In addition to the revelation of FBI failures in the Nikolas Cruz case, this week highlighted how badly our intelligence agencies missed Russian interference in the 2016 election. Other areas of government are equally synonymous with mediocrity or worse, especially those that fall outside its core responsibilities — VA hospitals, the US Postal Service and Amtrak to name a few.
It’s self-evident that our bloated government is doing a poor job administering existing gun regulations. What isn’t clear is why some people believe unreformed government tasked with enforcing even greater gun control measures might be able to prevent future tragedies. This is a triumph of hope over experience. Some might say the same thing about the chances of getting additional regulations passed in the first place. Given Harry Reid couldn’t get members of his own party on board with new legislation following Sandy Hook, when Democrats controlled the senate, the prospects today are even slimmer.
Instead, the first order of business should be to call for smaller, more limited government that is excellent at its core responsibilities, including protecting citizens using laws already on the books.
Incompetent government could be argued for just about everything you put your mind to. Whilst there were clearly failings of the government machine in this scenario. Realistically what would have been different if the paperwork was past around as per policy.
It’s a bit like saying I was hit by a speeding car if the government was doing there job it would not have happened.
I see examples of extreme enforcement of legislation, then seemingly “look the other way” policy on others.
Look at he ban on un pasteurised cheese – common in France but you won’t find them in America (think real Camembert).
Or pumping your own gas in New Jersey.
Kinder surprise eggs banned (common children’s chocolate / toy in other countries )
The above examples are trivial and unlikely to cause any harm, but the government enforces the rules efficiently and effectively.
The issue appears to be organisations with the cash to spend can motivate the government to do what interests them (not always directly linked to legislation but sometimes the enforcement of legislation)
Indeed, who knows what would have happened if the government had done what it was supposed to do? Anything is speculative. Maybe he’d have had his guns taken away and the family he lived with, who appear to have been unaware of his intentions, might have stepped in to address his problems. Maybe not. The issue I’m highlighting is that in far too many of these tragedies, government has failed us. In another recent case, the Texas gunman who killed congregants last year should have been barred from owning guns due to a domestic assault conviction but passed a background check. Given the large number of mass murders where government failure has been a contributing factor, it seems that a top priority ought to be better government. Otherwise, why bother passing more laws?
I don’t think the speeding car analogy applies here. We try to prevent speeding using a different mechanism than that which we use to prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. Speeding is prevented using a combination of deterrent, such as speed traps, and fines, which results in an expected cost based on the level of the fine and the public’s perceived likelihood of getting caught. Gun control is generally outright bans – bans on selling certain types of weapons and certain individuals banned from owning legal guns.
While the examples of bans you give above are generally well enforced, other types of bans have less successful track records, such as alcohol during the prohibition era and drugs today.
I’m not against considering additional gun legislation, but without a government that is capable of existing enforcing laws, it’s difficult to see how helpful it might be.
Thanks a lot for the article post.Much thanks again. Fantastic.