Brady Campaign president Dan Gross made the curious argument in the Huffington Post Monday that all "gun violence" in the U.S. is, in effect, terrorism--a position he stakes out from the very beginning, with the title "Isn't It All Really Terrorism?":
The reality is, as an advocate for gun reform, I am also, in a very real way, fighting terror.
Right, Dan--you and the Brady Campaign are just like SEAL Team Six.
He eventually gets around to acknowledging a "literal difference" between "gun violence" and terrorism, but dismisses that difference because "we are being terrorized" (what do you mean by "we"?)--because, evidently, anything that frightens some people is "terrorism."
Next, he reminds readers of the horror of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and then, astonishingly, claims that the "impact on our society" of terrorism and "gun violence" is "one and the same." Apparently, though, he does not mean that the impact on our society of terrorism has been plummeting for decades, and is now at a 42-year low, as is the case with violent crime.
But so far he has only been warming up for his real assault on rationality. Here he goes:
The last two weeks have seen three horrific acts of mass gun violence: the shooting at the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard; thirteen shot in a park in Chicago, including a three year-old boy; and a horrific terrorist attack in Nairobi.
Hmm--three bloody shooting incidents, in three places with draconian gun laws. Two American cities with the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S., and a Kenyan city with even more restrictive gun laws. The bloodiest of these atrocities by far, with 67 innocent victims killed, was the one in Nairobi--the one (coincidentally?) with the most oppressive gun laws. As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea outlined in the immediate aftermath of the massacre, in fact, Nairobi has gun laws more restrictive than the Brady Campaign dares dream of (at least publicly):
“In Kenya, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law,” the entry advises.
“[C]ivilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic self-loading military assault rifles,” it continues. And while “private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence … Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Kenya are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm…”
That means mandatory background checks “which consider criminal, mental, and domestic violence records.”
That last is especially relevant, because Gross brings Nairobi up a second time, in a very odd attempt to bolster the case for background checks:
Especially in light of the horrific attack in Nairobi, Congress should consider our lack of background checks for gun purchases a huge red flag.
Kenya has every gun law Gross advocates in his HuffPo piece, and more, and those laws simply provided the killers with 67 soft targets.
Gross still wasn't done. No hysterical screed about the desperate need for "universal background checks" would be complete without the lie that "[f]orty percent of gun sales in our country go unchecked." Even the virulently anti-gun, pro-Obama Washington Post fact-checkers acknowledge that this figure is fiction, giving Obama "two Pinocchios"--which they later increased to three (out of a possible four), because he repeated the lie, even after it had been debunked.
So, to sum up, Gross advocates gun laws just like Kenya's, so we can avoid what happened in . . . Kenya. Wait--what?