Let’s consider the island nation of Jamaica, and gun ownership there. The nation’s Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1967 and has been amended over the years, regulates the ownership and use of firearms and ammunition. This sounds like something that American gun control types would like to see in America. The law requires gun licenses on ALL firearms, and a yearly registration fee of $6,000 and for a rather poor nation this is an outrageous amount of money.

The nation even has a Gun Court, which was established in 197, to try criminal cases involving firearms. In other words Jamaica is an example to the world where gun control is a very serious deal. But is it working?

In a word… no.

Guns are reportedly smuggled into the country from places such as Haiti where firearms are traded for drugs. The BBC reported that recently 2,000 guns were melted down, and in the coverage of this story noted:

The BBC’s Nick Davis in Kingston says that although gun crime has long been a problem in Jamaica, the murder rate has been falling. However, the authorities want to do more. Between 70-80% of fatal shootings have been linked to criminal gangs whose firepower equals that of the police, our correspondent adds.

So has gun control done its job? Clearly it has not. And while we know that some anti-gun zealots will blame American guns, suggesting that if America cracked down our neighbors in Mexico and Jamaica wouldn’t have a source of guns – we need to remember that it is vintage Soviet and even modern Russian and Chinese firearms that are used in Asia and Africa by insurgents and criminals alike.

Basically, Jamaica should serve as an example of why gun control will always fail as long as there are criminals around. And until the drug and crime problem can be solved, gun control only makes it harder for the law-abiding gun owner.

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?

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.

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.

“Rapper Cory Gunz – born Peter Pankey Jr. – was arrested in the Bronx Saturday when cops found he was carrying an unregistered Taurus .9mm handgun, police said.

He was arraigned in Bronx Criminal Court Sunday night on charges of criminal possession of a loaded firearm.

His father, rapper Peter Gunz, posted the $30,000 bail.

Here is the part where we are sort of confused… see the quote from Cory:

“This was a big mistake on my part,” Gunz told The Daily News early Monday morning after getting out of jail. “I didn’t have any intentions of harming anyone or committing a criminal activity. So many young people look up to me and I need to fight though this.”

So was the gun part of a fashion or style statement – gun for Gunz? The law isn’t about intentions in this case. The crime was also committed already for mere possession, and Gunz should have known this fact. But it gets more bizarre reports the paper:

Cory Gunz and his dad recently started a campaign called “Gunz Against Guns” where they speak at schools across the Bronx to steer kids away from the deadly weapons, Peter Gunz said.

Now the real question is whether Cory – being semi-rich and famous – will get the same treatment as the two tourists to New York City? Personally we do see a difference in these cases. The tourists in question legally possessed their respective guns but broke the law by bringing them to New York City – believing they could legally carry their firearms.

Cory Gunz however has not only spoke out against guns, but must have known that he was in possession of an illegal firearm in the first place.

The paper actually rated his statement in a PolitiFact check column as “mostly true,” reporting:

If you compare the most recent data on the same group of nations, mostly based on 2009 statistics, the U.S. gun homicide rate is 15 times higher then the other countries. The number fell 10 times as high when we defined the inexact term of “western nations” as countries belonging to NATO.

So Moran’s figures are outdated and on the high side. His terminology is loose. But his point — that gun homicide rates in the U.S. tower over those of other wealthy European nations — holds up.

So his statement is “mostly true,” but even the fact check doesn’t offer all the facts. Consider that the United States was involved in two World Wars in the 20th century but has been able to avoid a full-out invasion of the nation since the War of 1812. The last major war fought on American soil was the American Civil War, which ended in 1865. While it is only debatable what issues guns had in our defense, our commitment to firearms ensures that our military is up to the task. When the Civil War came soldiers on both sides (tragically we should add) knew how to use guns.

When the Spanish-American War came, our military was small but volunteers swelled the ranks and these volunteers knew how to shoot. The same thing happened again in World War I and World War II.

But let’s also consider that Germany and Japan, two nations that have lower gun crime, fell victims to dictatorships. Both were democracies in the truth sense and yet became dictatorships, in part because there was no hope for the people to fight back.

Finally, we circle back to the issue of crime. The U.S. gun homicide rate maybe large, but crime has been falling in the United States and gun crime has been rising in places that have banned guns. So what does that say about the facts?

The ongoing firearms investigation is one of 11 internal investigations involving 15 sheriff’s office employees conducted over the past year. The investigations included complaints of domestic violence, sexual harassment, excessive force, abuse of authority, failure to follow policies and order, and failure to perform assigned duties. The investigations produced disciplinary actions ranging from oral reprimands to termination.

All of this is very upsetting, but the issue of the guns is the one we find very disturbing as it sort of takes aim at the argument that only police should have guns. In this case at least a dozen or so guns would now be in the hands of the bad guys near Duluth if “only the police” had guns.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCPrlRiZzFM

Cam Edwards talks to Dave Bruce, a Boston lawyer and Former Marine who is trying to help Ryan Jerome, a fellow Former Marine who was arrested in New York City for his concealed handgun