Rejecting Reason

Jay Nordlinger has some thoughts that relate to a recent post of mine on the Democrats' seeming rejection of all rationality in public policy.  As seen in the current debate over guns, just pushing for an "assault weapons" ban or universal background checks seems to suffice for actual argument.  Nevermind the question of whether or not those policies even achieve their implied ends of actually lessening gun violence. 

And Jay agrees:

One of the things Democrats frequently accuse Republicans of is having no respect for science or facts. Funny, but I make a similar accusation about them. Do they care about the results of their policies? No, they like the feel-good nature of those policies. 

How about soaking the rich? Does that bring in more revenue to the government? Or does the lowering of marginal tax rates bring in more revenue? Do higher taxes aid the economy or retard it? Who cares? The point is to feel good, about sticking it to the rich, or requiring that they pay their “fair share.” 

So it is with gun control. These gun-control laws: Do they reduce gun violence? Or do they have the opposite effect? Does the disarming of a population make them safer or less safe? Who cares? We feel better because we have “done something.” 

One fine day, I’d like to hear someone say, “I used to support gun control, but now I see that such control does not bring my desired results. On the contrary. Therefore, I’ve changed my mind.” 

That would be a beautiful thing.

For example, just look at Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation (they don't even allow concealed carry in the state) but whose crime rates are sky high.  First from the AP:

CHICAGO — They are counting the dead from gunfire again in Chicago, a city awash in weapons despite having one of the strictest gun-control ordinances in the nation. 

After a year in which Chicago's death toll surpassed 500, the bloodshed has continued in 2013 at a rate of more than one killing a day. It was the city's deadliest January in more than a decade. 

Now with this week's death of a 15-year-old drum majorette who had just returned from performing at President Barack Obama's inauguration, the mounting losses have put Obama's hometown at the center of the intensifying national debate over guns.

And from The New York Times:

CHICAGO — Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public. 

And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

Looks like actually stemming gun violence is a little harder than what most Democrats make it seem.  That's what happens when you keep reason out of politics.