The opposite of "It can't happen here"...

is  "It only happens here."

I'll start with a personal anecdote.

A few days ago, an associate of mine ( I wouldn't say he is a friend exactly, but I have mentioned him here before) was telling a story of when he lived in Massachusetts.  Basically how an apartment down the hall from his was robbed by three men with a shotgun.

And how the robbery happened minutes after he left.

The interesting part comes when a Canadian in the group nicely replies:  "Only in America."

What made this interesting were several factors.  Sure robberies, especially when the humble shotgun are not actually unique to the US.   But more interesting this same fellow had been less than a week before grousing about the corruption and violence of organized crime back in his native Quebec.

And as a bonus there's that Massachusetts, in many ways, has gun laws worse than Canada.

But, see,  the facts don't matter.   That comment was pure social signaling.

I mention the preceding because the president's comments today are quite similar.

In reference to the South Caroline massacre he said: “Let’s be clear —this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”  And complained about how he didn't get his gun control.

First off.  Wasn't the Charlie Hebdo massacre less than 6 months ago... and in France?  Ace has a list of more "such as England, Australia, Canada, France, Belgium, Germany, France, Norway, France, and even Denmark."

And then there's the little details about how the gun control laws the President was pushing for....   don't seem like they would have done anything.  (And yes that is Cooke writing a sober and accurate gun law article in Weekly Metrocon)

As the facts stand right now the killer used a 45 pistol, that was a gift from his father, and he reloaded frequently.

Edit:  And yes, this data is probably wrong given how soon it is, but it's not like the President is any better  so he's demanding gun control given *this* information.

Update:  Again first day most facts are wrong, but looks like the perp bought his gun from an FFL. Which raises questions of the reporting on a prohibited person (was he actually one?)  but does mean that "private sales" can't be blamed.  Oh who am I kidding.  The antis will blame gun shows  if they can get away with it.

As Cooke explains...  the pistol wouldn't have been counted as an AWB, the size of the magazines was moot,  and the Toomey-Manchin, universal background check bill... exempted immediate family transfers.

(As do the existing UBC laws of California, Colorado, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, New York, Iowa, Nebraska, or Delaware)

Huh.  That kinda sounds like not one of the proposed Post-Sandy-Hook laws would have changed anything.

Interestingly,  the perp actually violated many existing laws.  See, in South Carolina has a gun free zone Church law. (You need express permission from the owner to carry.

Oh  and the was apparently out on bond from a felony drug charge. Which if true means that not only was the perp a prohibited person unable to legally own a firearm, but since the father gave him the gun after that, he too is in violation of Federal law.

Like the earlier anecdote the facts don't matter and the legal status quo doesn't matter.

I found the parallels rather amusing.