News & Politics

WH Struggles to Answer How Mass Shootings Would Be Stopped with Gun Control Laws

During a White House press conference yesterday, spokesman Josh Earnest struggled to answer questions about how more gun control legislation would have prevented any of the mass shootings in recent years.

Wall Street Journal reporter Byron Tau referenced presidential candidate Marco Rubio’s claim that gun legislation would not have preventing recent mass shootings.

“If not a single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by the kind of gun control measures you champion, are those the right approach to this problem?” Tau asked.

Responded Earnest, “Well, Byron, I think we’ve been pretty direct and upfront about the fact that there is no piece of legislation that Congress can pass that would prevent every single act of gun violence. I think the case that we have made is one that rests primarily on our concern about national security and our careful consideration of common sense.”

The question wasn’t about stopping every single act of gun violence — how about just one?

Instead, Earnest turned to the no-fly list.

“The president believes it’s common sense and it is in our national security interests to prevent those who are deemed by the government too dangerous to board an airplane that we should pass a law that prevents those people from purchasing a gun, until such time as they can resolve the concerns that the government has about their potential links to terrorism,” Earnest said.

The Washington Free Beacon has reported that 72 employees of the Homeland Security Department are on the no-fly list. How about some common sense in hiring government employees?

Revealing a disturbing tyrannical streak, Earnest asked rhetorically if we should wait for someone to purchase a gun and kill innocent Americans — an idea reminiscent of the department of pre-crime from the movie “Minority Report.”

If we are talking about terrorism, and I’m not sure the White House is as they are so hesitant to even use the word “terrorism,” there are various other elements involved besides purchasing a gun involved in plotting to commit a terror act. We are learning about the sea of red flags flying around the terror couple responsible for the death of 14 people in San Bernardino. There was a false address on the lady terrorist’s visa application for starters, so how did she get approval to come to the U.S. when she lied on her visa application?

Tau continued to press Earnest: “Can the White House point to a recent mass shooting that would have been stopped by a expanded assault weapons ban or stricter background checks? The evidence seems to be that in all these recent mass shootings, these folks either passed background checks or were very determined to circumvent the strict gun laws that are already on the books. Can you point to any that would have been prevented or stopped by the kind of proposals the White House is championing?”

To which Earnest replied, “Again, Byron, I think the same thing applies here, which is it’s not our view that we should wait until somebody who’s on the no-fly list walks into a gun store, legally purchases a gun and kills a bunch of innocent Americans before we pass a law preventing it. That’s a common-sense view. The president believes that’s in our national security, and that’s why we believe quite strongly that Congress should take action to address it and close the no-fly, no-buy loophole.”

It’s not a “common sense” view that citizens are guilty until proven innocent. The administration doesn’t want the burden of determining who these likely terrorists are using traditional and “common sense” detective work.  For example, the Tsarnaev brothers, who used bombs in their terror attack, were interviewed by the FBI at the request of a foreign government long before the Boston Marathon attack.  Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan was in email communication with radical Anwar al-Awlaki, who the U.S. later killed with a drone attack in 2011. Are these things “common sense” red flags?

Many of these mass shooters, the ones who aren’t Islamic terrorists,  suffered from mental illness. Is the White House considering any help for those afflicted with mental illness? A new report suggests improved mental health services would have the most effect when it comes to curbing violent crime and shootings.

When Tau asked if any of the shooters were on the no-fly list, Earnest admitted, “Not that I know of.”

Nevertheless, the White House will push ahead with some unconstitutional executive action on gun control legislation in the very near future.