Killings are not a consequence of 'gun lobby rhetoric'

In the wake of the Pittsburgh cop-killings last weekend, the typical and expected attacks on gun ownership have been joined by a disturbing chorus of attacks on gun rights advocacy. Per Paul Helmke:

It is time for the gun lobby to stop stoking fear among gun owners with false claims about the government. It is time for the gun industry to stop capitalizing on those ginned-up fears to spread weapons of war among the public.

The gun lobby's rhetoric has consequences. We have seen how profound those consequences can be.

What "false claims" would those be, Paul? That the Obama administration is by far the most actively hostile to private gun ownership in the nation's history? That his selection for Attorney General signed an amicus brief supporting the now thoroughly discredited notion that there is no Constitutional protection for the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms? That Obama has expressed support for banning concealed carry? Banning handguns? Banning semi-automatic firearms? Banning nearly every gun shop in the country?

I don't deny that there's lying going on here, but it's not the "gun lobby" that's doing it.

The Pittsburgh cop-killer is a vile, bigoted, lunatic, and I utterly reject the notion that anyone but him bears any responsibility for his evil. To believe that is to believe the reprehensible notion that he bears less than 100% responsibility for what he has done.

David has much more, as does another GRE colleague, Daniel White, and "honorary GRE" Anthony G. Martin.

Oh--one more thing. If conservative speech in general, and gun rights advocacy in particular, is to bear any of the responsibility for the Pittsburgh cop killings, whom should we blame in Oakland, for the actions of the man who was "Symbolizing the Resistance of the African People"?


Race baiters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Snuffy Pfleger, perhaps?