In a shocking development in the push for gun-control Sunday, Senator Chris Murphy, who filibustered for 15 hours regarding the issue, admitted on ABC’s This Week that his proposals would not have stopped any recent mass shooting. “Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando, it would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino,” stated ABC’s Jon Karl calling out Murphy, “And in fact, it was unrelated to the killing in Newtown.”
The proposal Murphy has been pushing is one that is meant to close the mythical “gun show loophole.” “Would that have done anything to stop the massacre in Orlando,” Karl asked Murphy. The Senator tried to explain that his proposal had to work in conjunction with other proposals to be effective.
Karl again called out Murphy by pointing to the fact that terrorist Omar Mateen didn’t purchase his firearms at a gun show and passed a background check anyway. “So why -- why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres we're responding to,” Karl grilled Murphy.
Murphy’s only response was to argue that it was a “trap” to judge a proposal based on how effective it would have been in stopping the last tragedy:
So first of all, we can't get into that trap. I disagree, I think if this proposal had been into effect it may have stopped the shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend our proposal simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy.
But Karl’s inquiry still stands, why propose a solution to a “problem” that had nothing to do with the tragedy you are trying to stop? Could it be all about the agenda and not the people affected?