John Lott Says “Ask Canada” about Gun Registration
Kudos to our friend John Lott, who with Gary Mauser, offered a piece for The Washington Examiner last week titled, “Ask Canada – gun registration won’t make D.C. safer.” In this piece they noted:
Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns — in the U.S., the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities.
Gun control advocates have long claimed that registration is a safety issue. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun is left at a crime scene, and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link it back to the criminal.
Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way. Criminals are seldom stupid enough to leave behind crime guns that are registered to themselves.
Excellent points, and one that the mainstream media ignores.
BusinessWeek: Mexico Blames Guns for Violence and Republicans
This week Bloomberg BusinessWeek noted the meeting between President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon reporting:
The explosion of drug-fueled violence along Mexico’s border with the United States could harm relations between the two nations, President Barack Obama said Monday; Mexico’s leader retorted that much of the problem of drugs and guns begins on the U.S. side of the line.
The article also noted that Calderon continues to point blame at the United States and gun owners:
The flow of guns, especially assault weapons, from the United States to Mexico sabotages the work of his government in fighting the drug gangs, and the U.S. government has not done enough to stop it, Calderon said.
Typical nonsense and again it is interesting that this article failed to note that many of the guns used by the cartel are true military hardware not readily available to U.S. citizens. But of course that is an inconvenient truth after all.
Myth14: People Don’t Need Guns for Self-protection Because They can Rely on the Police
This myth makes us recall an old song by the rap group Public Enemy titled, “911 is a Joke.” Unfortunately there is no laughing matter about this myth.
Richard Stevens, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999), offered another thought on this matter:
Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.
First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.
Stevens adds:
Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect.
It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack.
And then let’s throw in all those cases we’ve covered in Who Guards the Guards. Do you really want to trust the police to save your life?
Guest Editorial Tries Twisted Argument
Writing for the Lake News Online, Kent Bush tries to play it both ways. He says he knows criminals buy illegal guns and even admits to being a gun owner, but then he plays the a little gun control isn’t so bad card, by stating:
This isn’t about a desire to take your guns well most of your guns. I don’t care if you have a gun to hunt deer, squirrels or coyotes. We can agree to disagree about how much safer you or your wife is now that you have that Desert Eagle 50 caliber pistol in your house.
But slippery slope arguments used by the National Rifle Association and other gun enthusiasts are patently false. Allowing reasonable gun control does not lead to jack booted thugs roaming our neighborhoods and seizing guns, leaving our militia unarmed.
Already he says, “most of your guns,” as in there is a number that is acceptable to take. And he states that arguments used by the NRA and gun supporters are false, but then doesn’t state what these are. We have in our Gun Control Myths outlined many of the arguments.
And what exactly is reasonable gun control? Don’t we have that now with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the National Gun Control Act of 1968? Why when people talk about gun control do they either not mention (likely because they don’t know) anything about these acts, or worse pretend that today we have no gun control
Gun control exists already. That’s sort of the point that should be addressed too.
WMBF Reports on Weekend Gun Buyback
Over the weekend WMBF reported on a gun buyback program and it was filled with the usual misleading, feel good nonsense. It noted:
One-hundred and thirty-four guns were collected during the three-hour Gun Buy Back Initiative Saturday.
It was the first time Conway held a program like this. Police say they are hopeful the program will bring crime rates down by taking unneeded and unwanted guns off the street.
Yet again the story takes the police at their word, but doesn’t note that it likely really didn’t take guns off the street. But maybe people want to believe they’re doing good.
New Study Claims: Those with Guns Think Others Are Armed Too
This week several outlets have reported the finding of a new study that suggests those holding a gun often believe other people are armed too. PsychCentral noted, in a piece insulting titled “Armed and Dangerous: Those With Guns Think Others Are Armed Too“:
James Brockmole, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at Notre Dame, teamed with a colleague from Purdue University to conduct the study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Perception and Performance.
In a series of five experiments, subjects were shown images of people on a computer screen and asked to determine whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object, such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object, such as a foam ball.
Now of course we have seen that the media has embraced this study, and there have been cries that this is “proof” that people shouldn’t carry guns openly or concealed because it could – COULD – mean that these individuals will believe everyone around them is carrying a gun as well.
Let’s say EVEN if that is true, there is a point the study misses and the media has either failed to note or just hasn’t mentioned. What about the criminals carrying illegal guns?
Doesn’t the fact that criminals may also – and for very good reason – believe those around them are carrying guns that this could put the unarmed in even greater danger? We’re not saying this is a fact, but it hasn’t even been discussed.
Trayvon Martin Shooting Sparks Outrage – But Misses Points
Trayvon Martin is dead, and that is just plain wrong on so many levels. Here is a young man who should have a had a bright future. What is amazing however is that the anti-gun media is blaming the NRA for his death.
CNN offered the headline: Killing shows flaws of NRA-backed law
Mother Jones claimed: The NRA Wants the Law Protecting Trayvon Martin’s Killer in All 50 States
America Blog: Trayvon Martin and the so-called “Castle Doctrine” — How the NRA “got its way” in 2006
The Giro: NRA relationship with Florida a big reason Zimmerman remains free
That is just a sampling of articles calling out this tragic shooting.
But let’s consider all the stories of how guns save the owners when someone legitimately attacks them, breaks into their house or otherwise tries to actually harm them. The media NEVER rallies around and FOR the law then.
And there is another point, it isn’t “lax gun laws,” or the “NRA” getting its way, this is about the criminal element too. Every single time something bad happens, the anti-gun crowd tries to blame the guns, not the criminal. But let’s also consider that criminals don’t heed the law, they aren’t deterred by gun bans, or restrictive gun laws. Those only – ONLY – affect the law-abiding.
Chicago Gun Control Laws Clearly Not Doing the Job
This week the American Thinker reported “10 dead, 49 wounded in 46 shootings over the weekend in Chicago.” The story noted an interesting point:
Chicago has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation; it is almost impossible for anyone to legally own a gun. So as a result of this prohibition of gun ownership, this unilateral disarmament Chicago must be as peaceful, as calm, as safe as well…kindergarten in paradise.
Uhm…no! While law abiding citizens don’t own guns and struggle to overturn laws banning them, those who laugh at such niceties as following the law, purchasing guns through authorized dealers and even stopping at stop signs, manage to obtain guns. And they use them in a brutal war being played out in some of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods, including the one so ably organized by our present president and the one about a mile from his ill gotten home. The shootings are done mainly by Hispanic and black gang members, mowing down the innocent, the passersby, the children in addition to the occasional opposition gangbanger.
And yet we’re sure that anti-gun types will rally around this violence and claim that we – as in the United States of America – needs tougher gun control. Maybe we need to get serious about crime, offer serious prison time and enforce the laws on the books rather than blame the guns. So kudos to American Thinker for noting what the media tends to ignore.
International News – Hand Grenades Used by Gangsters
The anti-gun crowd loves to use the UK as an example of how gun control laws save lives. But this weekend The Daily Record in Scotland reported something shocking:
Five members of a gang who left a hand grenade outside Kenny Dalglish’s home were jailed for life yesterday.
The two leaders of the criminal network were sentenced to a minimum of 22 years each.
The gangs are using hand grenades. Now we believe those are probably illegal in Scotland, so why didn’t the law deter these thugs? And more to the point, doesn’t this prove that if Scotland has a notable gang problem that would go to such extremes that crime does exist despite the strict laws?
Beaumont Enterprise Does shooting near courthouse change your views on gun control?
An editorial in the Beaumont Enterprise asked “Does shooting near courthouse change your views on gun control?” Interestingly this one actually asks some real questions. Here is how the editors presented this piece:
Has this tragedy changed your view about gun control in any way?
– Does it prove that it’s too easy for some people to get guns?
– Or does it increase your belief that law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves with guns?
– Does it show the futility of gun laws that are ignored by criminals?
– Or does it suggest the need for stronger laws in this regard?
Maybe some editors, writers and anti-gun zealots should ask themselves these questions.
