Firing Back: How Gun Control Failed in Jamaica
If you ban the guns the world will be a safer place say the gun-control advocates. “Guns are the problem and we must keep guns out of the hands of the bad guy” cry the anti-gun zealots. More laws, more restrictions, more background checks, etc., etc. That is the answer from those who hate guns, those who would strip away our Second Amendment rights.
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.
Reuters Lets Anti-Gun Zealot Get Last Word
Reporting on the “Virginia Senate votes to repeal limit on gun purchases,” Reuters seems to have taken the sour grapes approach to reporting. This included the final passages coming from the Virginia Center for Public Safety, including this quote from Lori Hass:
“The Senate today pandered to special interest groups and has just opened the door to begin illegal gun trafficking again in Virginia.”
Well it makes for a compelling kicker, is it accurate even? This isn’t the special interest if the vast majority of voters pushed for this. But apparently anytime an anti-gun type doesn’t like a ruling, they blame the “special interest” and unfortunately the media gives this added weight by supporting this line of thinking.
NPR Offers Biased Take on Virginia Gun Laws
How does National Public Radio see the new lifted restrictions on firearm sales in Virginia? Basically the way they report on it, it will only open the flood gates to criminals. The story offered this introduction to an interview between host Robert Siegel and newspaper reporter Bill Sizemore:
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.
Even Left-Leaning Daily Beast Sees “Bloomberg’s Gun-Control Ad Is the Wrong Move for Obama”
Apparently the left-leaning news site The Daily Beast didn’t like that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to make gun control a real issue in this country. This isn’t because writer Adam Winkler or anyone at The Daily Beast actually believes in the Second Amendment, but they know that “Bloomberg’s Gun-Control Ad Is the Wrong Move for Obama.” Winkler writes:
President Obama focusing on gun control this year would only stimulate gun-related interest groups, like the National Rifle Association, and encourage them to spend even more money to turn out the vote for Republican candidates. Of course the gun lobby is going to oppose Obama’s reelection no matter what.
Winkler then tries to defend Obama on the record:
The NRA and its allies, however, have a credibility problem on this issue. Ever since Obama won the Democratic Party nomination in 2008, the NRA has been ominously warning gun owners about what the organization calls Obama’s “10 Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment.” The NRA promised that Obama would “ban [the] use of firearms for home self-defense,” “pass federal laws eliminating your right-to-carry,” and “close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America.” None of these things has happened.
What Winkler does say is that President Obama did have a White House summit that called for “reasonable gun control,” which to us is actually an unreasonable call. Additionally, Obama did tell Sarah Brady he was in fact working on gun control but “under the radar.” These are points that The Daily Beast either forgot, or didn’t want brought up.
Finally after giving various weak arguments on the points, this article closes with:
Gun violence is a serious issue that deserves our leaders’ attention. Yet given the obvious downside risk of promoting gun control in an election year, gun-control advocates should hope that, when it comes to guns, Obama just keeps his mouth shut.
So what we are seeing is that someone believes there is a real problem – one we think is dramatically overstated – and yet says he hopes his guy “just keeps his mouth shut.” Democracy at work indeed!
National Review Calls out Bloomberg
We’re pleased that FirearmsTruth.com isn’t the only one to call out New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for issuing what is essentially a mixed message in his call for safer gun laws. As the National Review noted this week, Bloomberg’s issue is as much about the mental-health database as it is a gun issue – too bad that Bloomberg doesn’t address this and leave the gun issue to someone who understands it.
However, the National Review seems to be giving in on the issue a bit. The article notes:
Improving the mental-health database is an unambiguously good idea, and requiring background checks for private sales is at least debatable — a fair number of crime guns seem to come from private sources, and it’s not unreasonable to ask someone who wants to transfer a gun to drive to a licensed dealer first.
We just have to ask where does this line end? Is it unreasonable when a stranger buys a gun from you? This almost makes sense as you don’t know the person, but it becomes a gray area when it could be selling or trading guns to your friend. Is the background check still necessary? And what about when Dad decides to give a family gun to his son? Is the background check still necessary? “Happy birthday son, now let’s go to the gun shop so you can pay to receive your gift.”
And this is where the notion of “reasonable gun control” that so many anti-gun types call for becomes a bit unreasonable, especially as street thugs and criminals NEVER bother with background checks and permits.
Capital New York Quotes Anti-Gun Bloomberg
So how does New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg really see guns? We know he hates them, and last week he was quoted in Capital New York. Here is a sampling:
“There are too many loopholes in federal laws that let people buy guns when federal laws say they shouldn’t. Federal law says you cannot buy a gun if you have a criminal record, psychiatric problems, or a minor. Unfortunately, the gun background-check system that we have has some flaws in it. Too many people sell guns privately, and while they’re not supposed to sell to those who couldn’t pass a background check, they’re not required to do a background check. And it would be very easy to have reputable gun dealers do that background check for them.”
The question we would like to ask the Mayor is what is his point? Is this really a problem of “guns” or of the flawed medical system? Most gun sales do require a background check, and the background checks do keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t buy them. Further restrictions will only make it harder for the law-abiding – as the citizens of Chicago and Washington can attest. Those cities had even stricter laws than New York City and yet STILL had a gun violence problem.
Bloomberg later stated:
“I don’t think the founding fathers meant to have people to walk around with assault rifles in their hands. I don’t think the founding fathers meant to have people who are on the no fly list be able to go and buy guns.”
This is a common tactic used by anti-gun types. Did the founding fathers intend for reality TV? Did the founding fathers mean for people to have access to pornography on the Internet? It is certainly impossible for the founding fathers to have any opinion on no fly lists when the cutting edge technology in flight of the era of the 1780s was a hot air balloon!
Likewise, as we often state, the guns of the era were far deadlier given the medical treatment today. In the 1780s any musket wound was very likely to be fatal. So this nonsense that the guns are deadlier today is just that – nonsense.
And finally for good measure Bloomberg compares America to the Third World:
“There are more guns than there are people in America. And it’s only America that has this problem. A couple of third-world countries. But you go around the world and they look at us and say, ‘What are you people thinking?’”
No this isn’t true. There are mass shootings even in countries where there are far stricter gun laws. And yes, there are more guns than people in America. So what is the problem? This argument suggests that Bloomberg isn’t anti-illegal guns as he often tries to suggest, but truly ANTI-GUN in all respects. He is mad that people have guns because he doesn’t like guns.
But this is easy for a billionaire to say, one who has private security – who are likely armed. So are the guns really a danger? No, the danger is men like Bloomberg who will spend their vast fortunes to rewrite the laws as they see fit. Maybe he should at least change the name of his group from Mayors Against Illegal Guns to MAYORS AGAINST GUNS and stop the pretext and lying.
Holder in the Hot Seat – Blames Lack of Gun Control
So let’s get this straight, ATF ran an operation that saw a border control agent killed, and thousands of guns were let to walk to Mexico. And how does the Attorney General see it? It is a fault of lack of gun control in the United States, reports The Washington Examiner:
“ATF’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools,” Holder told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today. “Unfortunately, in 2011, a majority of House Members – including all members of the majority on this Committee – voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and long guns – like AK-47s – in gun shops in four southwest-border states.”
No one this guy won’t step down, he seems to actually believe the things that come out of his mouth!
BBC News Notes: Colombia experiments with Bogota gun ban
Gun control say anti-gun types will make a safer world. So maybe we have a test subject in Bogota, Colombia, which is banning firearms reports the BBC this week. But what’s this… some are already saying that it won’t reduce crime? The BBC noted:
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.
WaPo Suggests Gun Lobby Stronger Than Obama
This week, just prior to the State of the Union, The Washington Post suggested (gasp!) that President Obama isn’t Superman – or if he is, the gun lobby is his kryptonite. In an editorial titled, “A prime-time call for gun control would honor Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,” the editors offered this thought:
Mr. Obama last year delivered his State of the Union just weeks after the Tucson massacre and in the presence of victims’ family members. Yet he, like so many politicians intimidated by the gun lobby’s muscle, could not muster a single word about the need for reasonable gun control measures to ward off such violence in the future.
We would love if President Obama called for gun control and made it his pinnacle platform! By all means, because it would surely lower his chances for re-election in November.
However, we do have to ask – how is it that the most powerful person on the planet is “intimidated” by a lobby group? Doesn’t this actually suggest that this is a hot button issue with voters? This is a point that the gun hating media never seems to grasp. If Obama is “intimidated” by the gun lobby, it is only because he knows making it an issue will cost him his job.
And since this is the case, doesn’t that mean MORE Americans are pro-gun. But to the gun-hating media that doesn’t seem to matter.
Mayor Bloomberg Calls Out Obama on Gun Control
For us this is a lose-lose scenario, but at least we’re not the ones losing. This week, prior to last night’s State of the Union, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called out President Obama on gun control. It was the usual nonsense, about “loopholes” and supposed “easy access” for criminals to obtain guns. The truth is that all the measures Bloomberg wants only make it that much harder for the law abiding.
But anytime one sleazy politician calls out another we think an angel get wings! Bloomberg’s Letter After the Jump
