WHAT HAPPENED TO
THE NINETY PERCENT?
Now that the smoke has settled from the
mirrors advanced by band wagon politicians, the real victims of our violent
culture are left to confront their personal loss in solitude. That doesn’t mean
they will be forgotten. They simply will be replaced by more pressing headlines
and kept in abatement until the next senseless atrocity. Senseless is the key word. Legislation has yet to
be written that would inhibit the mentally unstable.
That said, we are now confronted with
the issue gun control advocates considered a “slam dunk.” Background Checks was
considered the point assault that would issue in a new level of gun ownership
restriction. On its surface, Background Checks looked like a good compromising
platform in an acidic debate that resembled a tug of war. Both sides had their
merits and miss-steps. However, it was the gun control camp with media support
that became proponents of the “Ninety Percent” endorsement. As holder of an
accounting degree and business management graduate degree, I am familiar with
the game of statistics. Immediately, the red flag goes up at ninety percent.
Why not go for the whole pie and say One Hundred Percent? Both numbers are
equally ludicrous. I challenge any
statistician to show me anything of which ninety percent of Americans will find
consensus. Even the horror of September 11, 2001 left Americans trapped in a
culture of preconception. Who to blame?
Assassins from the Soviet Union? A mysterious Al-Queda? A next door neighbor?
Let’s, for a moment, assume the Ninety Percent is a valid number. Who
would compose that percentile? The answer, of course, is ninety percent of
law-abiding citizens who would past the test with flying colors. A convicted
felon submitting to a background check would obviously be among the mentally
unstable. Statistics are no more than numbers left to be messaged. Example: Two
opposing attorneys face a pool of potential jurors. Each samples the pool for
the candidate that will be favorable to his/her argument. After sorting and
dismissal, a jury is selected. The attorney who did his/her homework will
probably win. Taking this concept further, it is only fair to inquire the size
and location of the “Ninety Percent.” Rural America has a history of accepting
the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment and a reluctance to disarm
themselves. Unlike their urban cousins, law enforcement is normally miles away
in a crisis situation. Ironically, crime rates are “statistically” higher in
the urban arena. So much for statistics.
Moving on, we are now confronted
with should have, would have, could have scenarios.
Obama
should have persuaded more democrats
to vote in favor of the White House. A more denigrating attack on special
interest would have the desired
effect on the Senate. The posturing of the Second Amendment as obsolete could have resulted in more converts to
the cause. Bottom line: the sound bites remind me of the fallow cries of a
spoiled child after being denied his candy.
Back to reality, I find it difficult
to believe a senator would knowingly end his/her career by voting against
his/her constituency. Special Interest is an extension of that constituency.
It’s called “target marketing.”
Gun-control advocates failed to recognize Background Checks was not the
sole reason for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s failure. Deeper concerns
contributed to the outcome. Growing numbers of Americans perceive the
government as dysfunctional. A much larger number of citizens (Ninety Percent?) reject government
intrusion into their homes. And freedom of choice is worth dying for.
Exploiting the pain of victims and their families by parading them on TV became
another example of indiscretion. When will the advocates of gun-control stop
shooting themselves in the foot? Pun intended.
