Taya Kyle to Obama: Why do we need more gun control when the murder rate has declined?

posted at 1:21 pm on January 8, 2016 by Allahpundit

In case you missed it last night. It’s a good question, enough so for Obama to acknowledge the truth of her point. Although there’s no way to listen to this part of his answer without laughing:

“Number two, what you said about murder rates and violent crime generally is something we don’t celebrate enough,” he agreed. “The fact of the matter is that violent crime has been steadily declining across America for a pretty long time. And you wouldn’t always know it from watching television.”

Remind me again, who is it who’s on TV every week or so insinuating that gun violence has never been worse and that we need to act with the utmost urgency to make access to guns harder?

While her question is good, and it’s a credit to CNN (and the White House) that a skeptic was allowed to speak at what was mainly an Obama photo op, it’s an easy point to answer if you favor more control. Just because things have gotten better doesn’t mean they can’t be better still, right? Until the murder rate is zero, which it’ll never be, it can always be lower. If you take that logic seriously, I’m not sure how it doesn’t lead you straight to total confiscation eventually. Seize the assault weapons and the murder rate might drop marginally. Seize all semiautomatics and it’ll drop more, but it still won’t be zero. There’ll never be a murder rate that’s “low enough,” in which case why not seize all pistols and rifles too? Any liberal who’s serious about not wanting to confiscate all handguns — assuming there are any liberals like that left — would do well to draw a big bright line in the sand where they think the imperative towards confiscation should end. You could draw it around the Supreme Court’s Heller decision: One handgun, kept exclusively in the home, for self-defense. You could draw it more broadly or narrowly, but until the left has incorporated a “this far and no further” limiting principle into its arguments, gun-rights advocates have every reason to think that ceding an inch is an invitation to opponents to take a mile. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton routinely mention Australia as a country whose gun policy achieved great things. That policy was a mandatory buyback, a.k.a. total confiscation. Why shouldn’t the NRA resist even minor incursions on rights like Obama’s latest executive actions when Democrats continue to keep Australia on the radar when discussing this subject?

But let’s be real. Even if Obama took my advice and drew a line on where the gun-control efforts should end, how many of us would believe him? It’s not just a matter of not trusting the left to stop pushing towards maximum statism (how many prominent backers of ObamaCare have admitted over the years that they prefer single-payer?), it’s a matter of logic. Nothing short of confiscation and a ban on future sales will put a meaningful dent in the number of gun homicides, so nothing short of confiscation and a ban will do. And since the number of guns already in circulation is so fantastically huge and getting huger by the day (thanks, Obama!), confiscation is a total practical impossibility. It’s like Trump insisting he’s going to deport all 11 million illegals, except many times more implausible. Those two facts in combination — the left must insist on a policy that can’t possibly be implemented — lend this whole debate an increasingly surreal air. Which is why I think Obama’s chief goal in all of it is simply signaling his own virtue to the left. He’s a lame duck; even if he wasn’t, he doesn’t have anywhere near the votes he’d need for congressional action on gun control; and even if he had the votes, trying to make confiscation happen in a country that loves guns as much as America does would be a hopeless catastrophe. The best he can do is show the left how much he cares. Mission accomplished, I guess?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Because, shut up, racist.

CurtZHP on January 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM

Violent crime is down nearly half since the 90s. The anti-gun crazies have other motives.

CWforFreedom on January 8, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Because guns in the hands of American Citizens are the only thing separating Obama from the Throne.

And because they are used to stop Obamasons from exacting reparations for slavery (that raaaacists call crime!).

ConstantineXI on January 8, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Violent crime is down nearly half since the 90s. The anti-gun crazies have other motives.

CWforFreedom on January 8, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Look at Europe. Their women are being raped by muslim “refugees” that their people DO NOT WANT let into their country and are themselves being threatened with arrest for complaining about it!

The governments there wouldn’t be able to get away with that if their population was armed (nor would the invading semi-evolved simians be able to rape without getting shot).

ConstantineXI on January 8, 2016 at 1:29 PM

More criminals have gone to online crime…..less interaction with people they may have to shoot.

albill on January 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM

I think many on the left want to rape, kill, and assault our daughters, sisters, and mothers. They like them weak and unarmed.

CWforFreedom on January 8, 2016 at 1:31 PM

“see, our efforts over the past years are working and we need to keep working so we don’t give up the gains we’ve made”

Also applicable to global warming and inner-city literacy rates.

/sarc

Lance Corvette on January 8, 2016 at 1:32 PM

Seize the assault weapons and the murder rate might drop marginally. Seize all semiautomatics and it’ll drop more, but it still won’t be zero.

No. Reducing a weaker person’s ability to defend himself, or herself, against young healthy thugs can only increase the violent crime rate, and the murder rate.

Fenris on January 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM

I have an idea! How about affirmative action gun control? If we can do good things for minorities that we don’t do for the majority, and if reducing the number of guns is a good thing, then how about reducing the number of guns available to minorities, leaving access to guns for the majority unchanged?

PersonFromPorlock on January 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM

obama is a national and int’l narcissist thug, and clinically mentally and physically ill. The media will be the last to know.

Shame on CNN

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2016 at 1:41 PM

Seize the assault weapons and the murder rate might drop marginally. Seize all semiautomatics and it’ll drop more, but it still won’t be zero.

Seize all weapons from police officers, and the number of people shot by police will drop to near zero.

That would be great right?

s1im on January 8, 2016 at 1:43 PM

More criminals have gone to online crime…..less interaction with people they who may have to shoot them.

albill on January 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM

FIFY.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2016 at 1:47 PM

The DOTUS cannot be questioned….

Audit of Kyle in 5….4…..

PappyD61 on January 8, 2016 at 1:47 PM

I don’t think lowering the rate of violent crime is the actual goal here.

SailorMark on January 8, 2016 at 1:48 PM

..Dickless Pharoah pistol-whipped by sniper’s widow.

The War Planner on January 8, 2016 at 1:50 PM

I don’t think lowering the rate of violent crime is the actual goal here.

SailorMark on January 8, 2016 at 1:48 PM

Definitely not – especially given that nothing proposed will do anything to disarm actual criminals.
If anything, it will increase violent crime, since they are really trying to disarm law-abiding citizens.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2016 at 1:56 PM

We stand on the edge of the loss of freedom simply because far too many fools out there think government gun control is a good thing. Haven’t they even read one short history book? How vacuous be the masses until its too late.

Don L on January 8, 2016 at 1:57 PM

Why does Obama hate rape victims?

fossten on January 8, 2016 at 2:02 PM

An interesting graph that shows a correlation between gun laws and homicide rates.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/a-historical-perspective-on-homicide.php

NotCoach on January 8, 2016 at 2:03 PM

“Even if Obama took my advice and drew a line on where the gun-control efforts should end, how many of us would believe him?”

“If you like your Health Plan, you can keep your Health Plan…”

“Not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS…”

“The attack at Benghazi was due to a YouTube video…”

“I love the United States…”

(the list is endless)

Seven Percent Solution on January 8, 2016 at 2:04 PM

People like Obama are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment zealots. They hate the fact that Benevolent Government has to be seen as a potential threat.

Aizen on January 8, 2016 at 2:04 PM

Haven’t they even read one short history book?
Don L on January 8, 2016 at 1:57 PM

Likely not – the schools only teach leftist revisionist history now.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM

Until the murder rate is zero, which it’ll never be, it can always be lower. If you take that logic seriously, I’m not sure how it doesn’t lead you straight to total confiscation eventually.

Off hand, I can think of a few:
1. You believe that some rights are more important than a potential life saved (which is technically true of anyone who doesn’t favor a “benevolent” police state).
2. You believe that gun confiscation will not save more lives than it costs.
3. You believe that the enormity of those lives lost due to gun confiscation – whether the number is greater or lesser than those gained – is too great to justify the measures in question.

Obama believes that the gun measures he wants are both consistent with the Constitution and will save lives. Whether or not you agree, that’s not an argument you can take all the way to confiscation unless you take a very unorthodox (or disloyal) view of the Constitution and have the judges (or revolutionaries) to back it up.

calbear on January 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM

to quote DrewM “Taya Kyle can walk into a House seat any time she wants”

commodore on January 8, 2016 at 2:17 PM

Obama: “You’re a girl, you’d probably just end up shooting yourself and everything you love.”

Ukiah on January 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM

White folks with guns are racists.

~Barry

BobMbx on January 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM

No. Reducing a weaker person’s ability to defend himself, or herself, against young healthy thugs can only increase the violent crime rate, and the murder rate.

Fenris on January 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM

…and make them (thugs) more brazen. Sort of like terrorists choosing soft targets.

Cherokee on January 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM

Seize the assault weapons and the murder rate might drop marginally. Seize all semiautomatics and it’ll drop more, but it still won’t be zero.

Very bad assumptions not backed up by the data. With the lifting of the AWB the crime rate dropped dramatically. AP seems to have it backwards for some reason.

preallocated on January 8, 2016 at 2:43 PM

If I was an anti-gun Democrat, I’d probably change to pro gun, just to make sure the bastard stayed away from my campaign.

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2016 at 2:57 PM

According to Cruz, something like 80% (paraphrasing) of criminals are democrats/leftists. So wouldn’t deporting all registered dems drop crime rates by nearly an order of magnitude overnight? Lets try it and see if I (and Cruz) are right. If we’re wrong, we’ll let the dems back in, I promise.

Buckshot Bill on January 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM

Why does Obama hate rape victims?

fossten on January 8, 2016 at 2:02 PM

It is quite possible that it is a self-loathing hate because he was raped by his father when he was a child. Might be true, might not, but it would explain a few things.

earlgrey on January 8, 2016 at 3:44 PM

“I want the hope that I have the right to protect myself.”

Of course you do, but that doesn’t require you owning a huge arsenal of military grade weapons.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 4:01 PM

Of course you do, but that doesn’t require you owning a huge arsenal of military grade weapons.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 4:01 PM

First, what does require have to do with anything? Why should anyone have to justify owning as many firearms as they wish to own?

Second, what is military grade?

NotCoach on January 8, 2016 at 4:16 PM

It is quite possible that it is a self-loathing hate because he was raped by his father when he was a child. Might be true, might not, but it would explain a few things.

earlgrey on January 8, 2016 at 3:44 PM

While islam does not accept homosexuality, pedophilia with boys is okay as long as they are still prepubescent.

Just sayin’.

bobthm3 on January 8, 2016 at 4:21 PM

Of course you do, but that doesn’t require you owning a huge arsenal of military grade weapons.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 4:01 PM

Which nothing Obama is proposing will stop either.

Just FYI

Chuck Schick on January 8, 2016 at 4:24 PM

Which nothing Obama is proposing will stop either.

Just FYI

Chuck Schick on January 8, 2016 at 4:24 PM

Yes, but what is military grade? I would love for Mensaloc to explain that to us.

NotCoach on January 8, 2016 at 4:27 PM

Yummy. More of Taya please.

Nutstuyu on January 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM

I think many on the left want to rape, kill, and assault our daughters, sisters, and mothers. They like them weak and unarmed.

CWforFreedom on January 8, 2016 at 1:31 PM

Why do you think they love Mooslums, who themselves worship a mass murdering pedophile?

Nutstuyu on January 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM

It is quite possible that it is a self-loathing hate because he was raped by his father when he was a child. Might be true, might not, but it would explain a few things.

earlgrey on January 8, 2016 at 3:44 PM

Which father, Frank Marshall Davis?

Nutstuyu on January 8, 2016 at 4:57 PM

..Dickless Pharoah pistol-whipped by sniper’s widow.

The War Planner on January 8, 2016 at 1:50 PM

I wouldn’t mind being pistol-whipped by her.

Nutstuyu on January 8, 2016 at 4:59 PM

BHO’s response to Taya was ridiculous.
If Obama wanted to save 1 more life, he would immediately deport all illegals, as there are cases on a weekly basis of illegals committing murder .

gonnjos on January 8, 2016 at 5:02 PM

but until the left has incorporated a “this far and no further” limiting principle into its arguments, gun-rights advocates have every reason to think that ceding an inch is an invitation to opponents to take a mile.

As if a “this far and no further” limiting principle would ever deter a lineral fascist. Remember, these are people devoid of principles.

JohnK144 on January 8, 2016 at 6:08 PM

calbear on January 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM

I think you are naive in your comment. He doesn’t care if it’s technically unconstitutional – he thinks the constitution wrongly restricts the government’s right of action. He has said so. He likes confiscation – having just recently said so.

As to the stats on violent crime – he still fails to make the correlation – or at least the connection that the areas with the tightest gun control have the highest murder rates.

It is a control/utopia problem the left has. I believe the president is lying through his teeth.

Zomcon JEM on January 8, 2016 at 6:16 PM

You could draw it more broadly or narrowly, but until the left has incorporated a “this far and no further” limiting principle into its arguments, gun-rights advocates have every reason to think that ceding an inch is an invitation to opponents to take a mile.

Works for every issue.
Even way back in the days of “is water-boarding torture or not?” the Left was unwilling to say exactly what they would support as interrogation techniques — they had to leave the line fuzzy so they could denounce whatever the President authorized, regardless of its absolute position on the “torture scale” —

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 6:56 PM

BHO’s response to Taya was ridiculous.
If Obama wanted to save 1 more life, he would immediately deport all illegals, as there are cases on a weekly basis of illegals committing murder .

gonnjos on January 8, 2016 at 5:02 PM

And stop all Muslim immigration before NYC Times Square every day is like Cologne and all the other cities belatedly exposed as the Real Rape Culture at work.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 6:58 PM

… confiscation is a total practical impossibility. It’s like Trump insisting he’s going to deport all 11 million illegals…

Guns don’t self deport when you enforce the laws on the books. Illegals do. It’s been proven time and again, so that smarmy throwaway line isn’t helping your case. Deporting all illegals isn’t just practical, it’s simple. We already have the tools in place to do it, we just lack an executive with the stones to pull the trigger.
If you’re going to try to make a convincing argument on one topic, try to avoid reminding people that you regularly take dumb positions on other issues.

CapnObvious on January 8, 2016 at 6:58 PM

OT: http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/the-new-knockout-game-nearly-50-black-teens-raid-wal-mart-assault-shoppers-destroy-merchandise

fossten on January 8, 2016 at 2:06 PM

Not really that far OT, as we will get more of this if Obama has his way.

As long as the establishment continues to promote racial tension within America, violent racial attacks will continue to happen.

WM stores are explicitly gun-free zones.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 7:01 PM

I have an idea! How about affirmative action gun control? If we can do good things for minorities that we don’t do for the majority, and if reducing the number of guns is a good thing, then how about reducing the number of guns available to minorities, leaving access to guns for the majority unchanged?

PersonFromPorlock on January 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM

This is what the media and pols are carefully not discussing, which is that if you remove from the stats all the gun deaths caused by black-on-black gang violence in a few cities, the death-rate by guns for the USA suddenly plummets to almost nothing.

And as many people have noted, if the Obama adminstration put a tenth of the effort into enforcing laws in the black-majority Dem-controlled cities as he does in trying to impose gun control on non-violent law-abiding people (of every race), the death-rate would also decline.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 7:05 PM

I had NO idea that Taya Kyle got to speak!

Lordy why oh WHY didn’t she pin TOTUS with:

most STRINGENT gun laws in the U.S. : AFAIK>>> CHICAGO

HIGHEST MURDER Rate: CHICAGO!! for goodness sakes!

Then very slowly she could define the term: C R I M I N A L

If there wasn’t a single firearm legally owned by a responsible citizen – the Bad Guys would still have PLENTY (as we all know)

GEEEEEEEEEZ

Katfish on January 9, 2016 at 6:02 AM

Prepare yourself for a tax audit Mrs. Kyle.

WhatsAMattaU on January 9, 2016 at 1:36 PM