If new gun-control measures are a good idea now, they’ll still be a good idea in two months. So why not take that proverbial deep breath and 10-count and take time to give a matter due consideration?Answer: Because this would be like waiting to legislate after the Reichstag fire. Those aiming to seize control never “want a serious crisis to go to waste,” as ex-Obama underling Rahm Emanuel put it.Ironically, New Zealand and the wider Left are playing right into the hands of the shooter, 28-year-old Australian national Brenton Tarrant. He wrote a manifesto and explained in it that he perpetrated his act with firearms precisely because of the “affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states [sic] and thereby the political situation of the world.” He aimed to catalyze a removal of gun rights (which, he believed, would evoke a strong reaction from the right — and this, he hoped, would spark a U.S. civil war).
Tarrant, who survived his crime and is in custody, is a highly intelligent, sane man (as evidenced by his quite literate manifesto) who planned his massacre meticulously. Thinking that some value-signaling gun-control measure would have stopped him is like believing in unicorns.
There’s also no evidence that it would prevent garden-variety wickedness, either, as there’s no correlation between stricter gun laws and lower crime/murder rates. There are nations with far stricter gun laws than the United States but higher murder rates; Russia, Mexico, and Brazil are examples.