www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx9wtfG81Gc

Cam Edwards talks to Rick Ector of Rick’s Firearms Academy of Detroit

Roughly 2,000 firearms were melted down in a blazing furnace Tuesday as part of an effort designed to combat gun trafficking and corruption in Jamaica while reducing violent crime.

Police, government and U.N. officials destroyed pistols and revolvers by pitching them into a kiln glowing bright orange at a cement factory in the capital of Kingston. Most of the guns were decommissioned or seized in police operations over the years.

Let’s review the second paragraph – which notes, “Police, government and U.N. officials…” – because we have to ask why is the United Nations involved? Well, it gets more interesting. Consider this next example of how the story was reported:

William Godnick, a coordinator with the U.N. Regional Center for Peace Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, said the destruction of the guns “is the beginning of a long process in which we hope to destroy a much larger quantity.”

Not to sound like alarmists, but we’d like to know where this destruction of guns ends? The words “disarmament” concern us just a bit. And the story also continues, and again it sounds like a replay of what we heard about Mexico:

The large majority of the gangs’ weapons are smuggled from the United States.

Illegal guns come in on freighters and in “guns-for-ganja” deals by fishermen, who carry homegrown marijuana to nearby Haiti and return with pistols, revolvers and submachine guns — many of them believed to be from the U.S. as well.

So once again, problems elsewhere are going to be blamed on America guns, and only after is the “drug” connection made clear. But let’s review a key passage, namely “pistols, revolvers and submachine guns – many of them believe to be from the U.S.” as this again implies that in Miami or elsewhere people can just go to the gun shop and buy submachine guns off the shelf!

We’ll continue to watch as this story likely develops.

He reportedly attempted to a cache of firearms that included “three M-16 rifles, one shotgun, 16 handguns,” as well as slot machines and “thousands of cartons of cigarettes, along with counterfeit merchandise.” But even worse, is the fact that Masso was “recruiting other law enforcement officers to join the scheme.”

This makes us wonder if Mayors Against Illegal Guns shouldn’t look closer to home instead of targeting distant gun shows?

Twenty years ago, Virginia had a not-so-flattering reputation as a haven for illegal gun runners. Traffickers would buy batches of guns legally in the state, and sell them on the black market. With the Virginia guns turning up at crime scenes up and down the Eastern seaboard, the state legislature decided it was time to act — a law was passed to limit gun purchases to one a month. But gun rights activists have fought to overturn it, and on Monday, the Virginia Senate approved legislation to repeal it.

Is a “reputation” really what this is about? This type of reporting doesn’t offer all the facts, including that gun sales are up and crime is down. But that would get in the way of this reporting.

But the interview also included an interesting exchange:

SIEGEL: Now, Virginia is a state where there’s a great deal of gun ownership and I assume the Republican legislators and the governor figure the public opinion is on their side with these moves.

SIZEMORE: I think they do. Virginia certainly is a big gun-owning state, particularly in the more rural areas where hunting is a, you know, longstanding tradition. You know, in the more urban areas where crime has been a problem, I think you find more support for gun control, but at the moment, the gun enthusiasts certainly seem to have the upper hand.

Let’s review: Siegel makes it clear that it is “public opinion,” but Sizemore by responds by trying to suggest that there is support for gun control, yet “gun enthusiasts” have the “upper hand.” Isn’t this a naïve way to look at it this issue? Clearly the support for gun control isn’t strong enough, but once again the anti-gun types try to pass this off as if it is the voice of a few radicals.

At least the host notes there is “public opinion,” but too bad the media can’t see it that way.

But being the ever vigilant anti-gun zealot, Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, cried foul this week, writing a blog post for the Huffington Post, titled, “When It Comes to Data on Firearm Sales, Gun Lobby Still Shooting Blanks.” His rant basically tries to suggest on the one hand that gun sales could included used firearms – to which our reply would be “so what.”

He takes aim at the point that firearm sales data is conducted via background checks and seems annoyed that data isn’t available on sales. Of course we’d like to point out that there are only two publicly traded companies and private companies aren’t required to release sales figures. So what is his point?

First he thinks that the reporting should be done because other industries do it:

Virtually every other industry in America offers the media actual data on sales. Click here to see industry data on pharmaceuticals, motorcycles, and ever-popular Mac products, for example. So why do the NRA and NSSF continue to block access to this information?

This might be true, but again Apple is a public company, as are many companies making those other products. The firearms industry is full of privately held companies.

But let’s challenge back to Horwitz on one issue – he says the media is offered this data. Well, why isn’t the media held accountable when it offers mistakes in reporting about firearms? The media routinely notes “High Powered Assault Weapons,” which of course there is no such thing.

But back to Horwitz, he doesn’t let it go there. No, he suggests something sinister is at work:

Because the industry has something ugly to hide…. If the NSSF did make sales figures public, it would then be possible to compare gun sales data to aggregate data on crime gun traces and identify with specificity the volume of firearms being diverted to criminals and traffickers in the illegal market. Researchers could also divine which firearm manufacturers are failing to use effective safeguards to stop the illegal diversion of their products.

It’s no secret that the gun industry knows that their distributors and retailers supply thousands of guns each year to criminals.

So basically Horwitz, who no doubt has realized that gun sales are strong because the American public wants to buy the guns, is now trying to criminalize these from another direction. He claims “it is no secret” that the gun industry supplies “thousands of guns each year to criminals,” and yet offers little proof to back up this claim. Of course if you can’t convince the American people who seem to want guns, and are becoming single issue voters who can sway elections, then the next step is to make the guns illegal instead. Clearly that is the goal Horwitz has in mind.

“Federal laws say you can’t get a gun if you have a drug problem, psychiatric problem, criminal record or [are a\] minor, and yet Congress doesn’t give monies to make sure that we can have a background check,” Bloomberg said on “Meet the Press.”

Criminals seeking guns can take advantage of “too many loopholes,” the mayor said.

“The background database isn’t up to date, private sector sales of guns is something like 40%, and they don’t do background checks,” he said.

The problem with this argument is that it basically blames the loopholes and not the criminals. It also tries to suggest that those 40 percent are 100 percent of the illegal gun problem, and there is no evidence this is the case. Once again it seems clear that Bloomberg isn’t just part of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, he’s a mayor against all guns.

However, a Senate committee has killed two other gun-rights proposals that would have prevented colleges from banning firearms on campus—a particularly outrageous proposal given the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech—though a House committee is still considering whether to allow faculty members to carry guns on campus.

How this outrageous exactly? Is that even fair reporting? While the bias is thick already, we’d like to ask what will stop a gunman from ILLEGALLY carrying a gun on a campus? Is it strong language, a sign, or a even a law? Let’s see how those work out.

Here is what we are talking about:

Bloomberg asserted the (recent) shooting (in New York City) made clear the importance of gun control. He added: “We had too close a brush with death tonight due to illegal guns.”

And the figures prove he’s right. Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne told me that about 85 percent of the gun crimes committed in New York City result from gun purchases made in Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, “states with comparatively lax gun laws.”

First question, where does Paul Browne get his information? And more to the point, how do the figures prove Bloomberg is right? This number is widely cited, but without a source. Second, what numbers of those are legal vs. illegal gun purchases? In other words, are these even legal purchases that take advantage of “lax gun laws” in the first place? This point is never made clear and is often very vague. Not exactly the facts now are they?

But the facts get even more twisted:

John Feinblatt, the Mayor’s chief policy adviser, told me that states with tough gun laws are unlikely to be the source of illegal guns. He noted that, in fighting gun crimes, two measures are vital: having universal background checks for gun sales and putting all such data in the FBI files. In the case of the Virginia Tech massacre, in which 33 people were killed, the gunman, Seung-hui Cho, had a mental history that indicated he was dangerous but , Feinblatt said, that was never passed on to the FBI. Some state laws on gun sales, he added “have loopholes like swiss [sic] cheese.”

Again, this is twisting the message and points. Seung-hui Cho’s ability to get a gun wasn’t because of lax gun laws, but rather a failing in the mental health system. But what “loopholes” are like “Swiss cheese” exactly? Would this be private sales? Even in New York private sales are legal, provided both parties have licenses to own the firearms.

But another point we’d like to make on facts. States with tough gun laws may not be the source of illegal guns, but it is hard to know for sure. Illegal guns aren’t exactly tracked the way commercial sales are tracked, so this is somewhat a vague point. It is clear that guns do change hands in New York and Illinois – as there is gun violence. Clearly an illegal black market operates and no amount of gun bans or gun control is going to destroy this black market. But that’s a fact that really pushes the issue – is it Mayors Against Illegal Guns or just Mayors Against Guns, because the way these guys talk it sounds like the latter.

And critics of Mr (Mayor Gustavo) Petro’s ban have pointed out that most homicides involving firearms are committed with non-registered weapons, most likely smuggled into the country by left-wing guerrillas and the criminal bands that control drug trafficking.

So let’s see if we understand. The city is going to ban guns, keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but critics note that guns are smuggled into the country and are used by criminals.

This should be required reading by groups such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.

So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona’s duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn’t a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people’s will was overturned by a gun.

Here we go, another anti-gun type who somehow thinks the “will of the people” must be for gun control, but somehow the gun lobby has too much power. The irony here is that he even says, “In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people,” so why doesn’t he accept that the will of the people is for their Second Amendment rights?

And normally we don’t respond to editorials, but Pitts is ripe with errors, half-truths and utter misunderstandings. So much so we’ll take them one at a time. He notes:

This episode (in Tucson) joins a long list of elections overturned and social movements derailed by men with guns, as in the shootings of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Huey Long, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, the Kennedy brothers, George Wallace, George Moscone, Harvey Milk andMartin Luther King Jr. Somehow, people who should never have guns never have trouble getting them. John Kennedy’s assassin, a disaffected former Marine who had once defected to the Soviet Union, bought his by mail order. King’s assassin, a wanted fugitive, bought his over the counter.

Today, you cannot easily buy a gun mail order without a Federal Firearms License. Either Pitt doesn’t know this or chose to ignore this fact, but it does deflate his argument. Likewise, background checks are now done when buying a “gun over the counter.” The vast majority of crimes are committed with “illegal guns,” so how does changing the laws as they have been changed really going to stop gun violence?

Likewise, Pitt doesn’t note the cases where guns have been used in self defense? He chooses to ignore such examples as well. Not exactly the fairest argument but we’ll move on. Pitts adds:

After all, the solution here is not rocket science.

We need meaningful background checks on all gun purchases — no loopholes. A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.

Actually we have these background checks in place, with a few exceptions. But it wasn’t actually a loophole that allowed Jared Lee Loughner to obtain a gun. It was a failure in the mental health system, not the background check system. So here we agree, a mentally unstable man should not have access to a gun, but why blame gun laws when he did everything legally?

Pitts also adds:

We need to ban fully automatic weapons from private use. The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter.

This passage pretty much loses us, as the truth is that “fully automatic weapons” are essentially banned and have been since the 1934 Federal Firearms Act. While some states do allow residents to own fully automatic weapons these individuals must pass detailed background checks and pay for a transfer stamp. There is no example of a legally owned fully automatic weapon being used in a crime. Additionally, these would not be ideal for hunting.

What we think Pitts really meant to comment on was “semi-automatic” firearms. But to suggest these be banned isn’t just silly it is unreasonable. Likewise, this isn’t just an issue about hunting. The Second Amendment of the Constitution doesn’t provide for the right to hunt, it provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

Finally, Pitts closes with a semi-rant:

At the very least, we need to have a serious national dialogue about these and other possible solutions.

But we won’t. Too many on the political left still seem to harbor a fantasy of getting rid of all guns and refuse to distinguish between responsible gun owners and those criminals or deranged people who have no business with firearms. Too many on the political right still harbor the paranoid delusion that any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters.

So nobody talks. Nobody listens. Meantime, our unwillingness to get serious about an epidemic of gun violence brings us the equivalent of 11 Columbine massacres every week — three9/11s every year. Every once in a while, as now, it even overturns an election. The carnage goes on, and on.

We respond by saying, why do we need a serious national dialogue? The truth is that we aren’t seeing Columbine massacres every week. Nor does evoking 9/11 have any place. The hi-jacking on 9/11 was not accomplished with any firearms. Using 9/11 as a call for gun control is insulting to those who died that day.

But yes, there is concern from gun-owners – not just those on the right – that gun control is code for confiscation. This is because the anti-gun crowd calls for it. There are those who suggest that only the police and military should have guns.

Law-abiding gun owners don’t want to give an inch because it won’t stop at an inch. It will continue and continue, so the debate will continue. And this brings us back to the first statement that Pitts made:

In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.

Isn’t the will of the people clear?