Important headlines for April 20th – Florida's surging gun sales
Bottom Line: Stories you shouldn't miss and my takes on them
Excerpt: It's a familiar cycle: mass shooting, wall-to-wall media coverage, then politicians and activists reignite the debate over gun control. According to Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University and one of the state's preeminent researchers on gun control, it's that last one that has the greatest effect on whether there will be a surge in people buying guns following a major tragedy.
"It's the publicity that counts because it communicates to prospective gun buyers that there may be more gun control and their thinking is to get while the getting is good," he said. "It's not just reporting of the event — it's reporting of people after the fact saying, 'This means we need more gun control.'"
in the two weeks after Parkland, background checks increased by 44 percent. That before-and-after jump around that day is greater than on 98 percent of days since late 2011.
After the shooting, the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School began loudly calling for a ban of assault weapons.
"When you talk about banning whatever is vaguely defined as 'assault weapon,' " Kleck added, "the fact that it isn't well-defined makes it more threatening to gun owners because they don't know what they need to go out and get."
Hot Take: Well thank you. Finally, an accurate and appropriate story on the subject of gun control and gun sales advanced by local media. Especially as it applies to the professor. Anytime you have legal products that are widely used and desired but that are being legally threatened/restricted what do you think is going to happen? More importantly still is the final point by the professor. The point articulated by the professor about "assault weapons" bans. As I pointed out from day one, that premise should be rejected at every turn and every person articulating that narrative should be made to specifically explain what they wanted to be banned. As I illustrated there are three times more deaths due to knives than all rifles combined annually - so if you're talking about "assault weapons" you'd need to start with banning knives if you're going to seek to ban devices used in the death of people. The truth once again is that 28% of Americans wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment prior to Parkland.
Many of those people were dishonest brokers in the aftermath of the shooting hiding behind the shield of ignorance known as "assault weapons". The goal being to get as much banned as possible before showing one's true colors. Others using the term were/are just plain ignorant about firearms generally and use the term because they don't know enough about what they think they want to ban to spell it out. It's why I've asked the question of everyone who's attempted to play the "assault weapons" card right along. If we're going to universally ban something and change the rights of all Americans, you should A) Be honest about your true intentions and B) know what you're attempting to ban before you do so. With those two conditions unaddressed the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens who lawfully abide by existing guns laws will always become alarmed. It's like the gun control version of the Salem Witch trials.