While media outlets like Bloomberg are accusing Republicans of pouncing on the second attempt on Donald Trump's life in as many months, Democrats are doing some pouncing of their own. No, they're not pointing a finger at the rhetoric coming from the Harris/Walz campaign. Instead, they're blaming the Second Amendment and “gun culture” for the assassination attempt.
Writing at MSNBC, former FBI agent Frank Figliuzzi says the attack wasn't the result of a failure of the Secret Service. I largely agree with him on that particular point, at least based on the current evidence. But Figliuzzi goes on to assert that it was a lack of gun control that led to the attack; ignoring the fact that the suspect was already prohibited from keeping and bearing arms.
We can talk all day about the need for increased use of technology, drones, cameras, aircraft, dogs, increased staffing of the Secret Service and enhanced federal funding for local police support of the Secret Service, but none of that will change the fact that people who should never have a gun are walking around with high-powered weapons. In fact, the Secret Service budget has expanded by 55% in the last decade according to the CATO institute. Those extra dollars seem to not have had an impact on the agency's ability to successfully carry out their “Zero Fail” mission. That's because you can't just throw money at an implausible mission and hope it helps.
The man arrested in Sunday's incident had been charged more than 100 times by police in North Carolina, including charges of possessing a weapon of mass destruction and a fully automatic machine gun, resisting an officer, and hit and run. We don't yet know whether this man was in lawful possession of the assault-style rifle he wielded on Sunday, nor do we know whether he had any felony convictions that would have precluded his purchase or possession of a gun. Nevertheless, ask any responsible gun owner if this guy should have a gun, and they'd tell you, “No.” That's where we need to focus: the guns, and people who shouldn't have them.
Actually, we do know the answer to a couple of those questions. Federal authorities have charged Ryan Routh with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, so he didn't lawfully possess that firearm. Figliuzzi should be well aware of Routh's status given that the story he linked to discusses Routh's conviction for unlawful possession of a machine gun in North Carolina in 2002.
In the same story Figliuzzi cited, MSNBC reported that despite more than 100 charges filed against Routh by North Carolina officials over the years, there's no record of him ever being sentenced to prison. Instead of questioning why Routh was repeatedly allowed to plea bargain charges down to various misdemeanors and avoid serious consequences for his alleged crimes, the FBI agent-turned-progressive pundit instead wants to know when we're gonna start going after lawful gun owners.
Figliuizzi says there are three things that should be done in response to the assassination attempt: double the size of the ATF's budget, task the Secret Service solely with protective services, and “significantly reduce the number of assault-style rifles in this country”.
Research shows that not only are these weapons preferred by mass shooters, but past federal bans on such weapons actually worked to reduce mass shootings. According to Everytown, “A study found that the federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was associated with a significant decrease in public mass shootings and related casualties, preventing at least 11 public mass shootings during the 10 years it was in effect. The researchers also estimated that had the law remained in effect from 2005 through 2019, it would have prevented 30 mass shootings that resulted in the death of 339 people and wounded 1,139 more.”
Figliuzzi is wrong about rifles being the weapons of choice for mass shooters. Handguns have been used in about twice as many mass shooting incidents than rifles of any kind. Does that mean that Figliuizzi would support a ban on pistols? After all, not only are they the most common firearm used by would-be mass murderers, they're also the most common firearm used by more garden-variety criminals.
As for Figluizzi's “evidence” from Everytown, even some researchers who say that mass shootings declined during the ten-year period where so-called assault weapons and “large capacity” magazines were prohibited from sale says the rarity of mass shootings makes it “challenging to predict with accuracy who will commit a mass public shooting or to develop policies designed to reduce their incidence or severity.”
And so, he said, it “may be unrealistic to assume that policy proposals targeting mass shootings in particular would, individually or collectively, prevent a catastrophic attack from ever taking place in the future.”
Notably, Figliuzzi doesn't ever attempt to outline how to “significantly reduce” the number of semi-automatic rifles in this country. There are more than 20 million AR-style rifles in the hands of lawful gun owners. What would he consider a “significant” reduction, and how would he take those guns out of circulation? A mandatory “buyback” like the one Kamala Harris backed in 2019? Door-to-door confiscation? Or would Figliuzzi just prefer to make possession of the most commonly-owned rifle in the country a federal felony offense and prosecute gun owners on a piecemeal basis?
By his own logic, we should be banning police from carrying guns since some officers commit crimes using their service weapons. Is Figluizzi ready to take that step towards “gun safety”, or is he only interested in going after the guns that you, I, and millions of other Americans own? Figliuizzi doesn't say, but I think we know the answer to that question.
Find the original article in its entirety on Bearing Arms.
READ NEXT: Meet The Billionaire Championing A Future Where Robots Become Your Watchful Guardians
