Since the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, liberals have really ramped up their effort to use tragedies to advance their anti-Second Amendment, gun-control agenda. While they claim that they aren’t trying to ban guns but rather just prevent the bad guys from obtaining them, gun owners know the truth: they will not stop until it is as impossible to obtain a gun in the United States. Despite the clear protections that the Second Amendment offers, liberals would like to see that key right erased from our nation’s founding documents.
Recently, presidential hopeful and Florida Senator Marco Rubio made what was, in liberals’ minds, a bold statement. He claimed in a recent television interview, “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”
To liberals, it likely sounds like just excuses, which is probably why the Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog looked into the claim. The findings will depress any of the aforementioned liberals. Glenn Kessler, the Post columnist, looked at a dozen recent mass shootings. Here are some quotes from his findings:
On the most recent California terror attack he writes,
Analysis: California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, dating from 1989, and specific types of AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles are banned. Ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets are also outlawed, though older, larger magazines are grandfathered. A proposal to pass a federal version of California’s law was defeated in the Senate in 2013. There are indications that the suspects illegally modified their California-compliant weapons. In any case, the laws did not thwart them. (Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, in 2013 vetoed a bill that would have toughened the law, but the guns used in the attack were purchased before the law would have taken effect.)
On other recent mass shootings he comes to similar conclusions:
Analysis: No proposed laws would have prevented these purchases.
Analysis: The Senate bill to extend background checks would have included online sales. But because Abdulazeez purchased his other weapons legally, thus passing a background check, a crackdown on online sales likely would not have made a difference in this case.
Analysis: This is an example of an existing law that failed.
Analysis: There is no indication new gun laws would have made a difference.
After looking at all of these recent shootings, Kessler has some bad news for gun control advocates. He concludes,
This is certainly a depressing chronicle of death and tragedy. But Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.
The next time a liberal tries to suggest a new gun law to prevent a tragedy like we’ve seen in the past, SHARE this post with them.