RSS

Gun Control Nuts

22 Feb

Gun Control Nuts In the 20th century, over 50 million people were murdered by their own governments--AFTER those governments banned private ownership of firearms. GUN CONTROL KILLS [courtesy Google Images]

GUN CONTROL “NUTS”
In the 20th century, over 50 million people were murdered by their own governments–AFTER those governments banned private ownership of firearms.
GUN CONTROL KILLS.   IT COULD HAPPEN HERE
[courtesy Google Images]

 “There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn’t end in their massacre.” Louis L’Amour

 

ZeroHedge.com reported in “Meanwhile In Chicago, 120 People Shot In First 10 Days Of 2016” that,

 

“Even as Obama takes his anti-gun crusade to new highs [by] dispensing executive orders, the president conveniently continues to ignore the state of affairs in his native Chicago—a city in which guns are banned—yet where the shooting epidemic has never been worse.

“According to the Chicago Tribune, the total number of shootings in the windy city has risen to 120 in just over a week into the new year . . . at least 19 people have been killed and at least 101 more have been wounded. This is three times higher than compared to the same period one year ago.

“Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi released a statement saying, ‘Every year Chicago Police recover more illegal guns than officers in any other city, and as more and more illegal guns continue to find their way into our neighborhoods. So it is clear we need stronger state and federal gun laws.‘”

 

That’s not “clear” at all.

What’s clear is that the Chicago Police Department is lying or stupid.  As you’ll read, there’s good evidence indicating that Chicago gun deaths aren’t due to Chicago’s gun control laws being too weak, but because their gun control laws are too strong.

Gun control kills.

The cops should know it.  Insofar as the Chicago Police Department advocates more gun control, it’s helping to cause, rather than prevent, more deaths.

The Chicago P.D.’s statement continues:

 

“So far this year, the majority of the gun violence we’ve seen are a result of chronic gang conflicts driven in part by social media commentary and petty disputes among rival factions.”

 

First, if Chicagoans are dying because of “social media commentary” (the internet) and “petty disputes,” is Chicago’s real problem gun control or ineffective education and failure to provide young people with some sense of moral values?

More, I’ll bet that a majority of those shot or killed were disarmed when the shooting took place.  How many of those victims would’ve died if the assailants knew they were armed?  Would the killers have all had the nerve to shoot if they knew the victims might shoot back?  Evidence below suggests that the answer is No.

Second, nearly 3,000 Chicagoans were shot in A.D. 2015.  If Chicago’s current rate of gun assaults continues throughout A.D. 2016, over 4,000 could be shot and over 800 killed in a city that has powerful, unprecedented gun control laws.

Doesn’t the relationship between a high number of shooting victims and a high-powered gun control laws suggest that gun control laws are no more effective at quelling crime than Quantitative Easing is at stimulating the economy?

 

•  The Washington Times (“White House says stricter gun laws can prevent terrorist attacks”) reported that on December 3rd, A.D. 2015 two Muslims killed 14 and wounded 17 in the San Bernardino, California. President Obama and his spokesmen responded as follows:

 

“Despite mounting evidence that Islamist terrorists were responsible for the mass slayings in California, the White House said Thursday that stricter gun control could have prevented the attack and vowed to keep ‘scrubbing’ the nation’s laws for ways that President Obama can take executive action to restrict gun ownership.”

 

Apparently, it wasn’t the “Islamist terrorists” who killed 14 in San Bernardino, it was the guns.  Maybe we should’ve let the “Islamist terrorists” go and just jailed their guns.

In fact, gun control is President Obama’s #1 solution to every problem.

Got global warming?  Cure it with more gun control.

Leaves falling off trees and clogging your gutters?  Stop it with more gun control.

Unseasonably warm, cold or moderate weather choking the economy?  Gun control will solve your problems.

Too many potholes in the streets?  The answer’s obvious:  more gun control.

In fact, stricter gun control laws won’t work any better than stricter drug control laws or NIRP.  Drugs are here in abundance and the government can’t or won’t do anything to stop it. NIRP is a last grasp at a flimsy straw.  There’s no reason to suppose that stricter gun control laws will work any better to defeat criminal elements.

In fact, there’s good reason to believe that the only real effect of stricter gun control laws will be to put more honest Americans in prison for having guns to defend themselves against criminals—or in the grave for following the law and having no gun to defend themselves.

No one seriously believes that stricter gun control laws would’ve stopped the Jihadists in San Bernardino from acquiring guns to kill 14 and wound 17 last December.

But increasing restrictions on access to guns helped leave the law-abiding 14 who died defenseless.  Gun control left the law-abiding 17 who were injured defenseless.  Those people died or were wounded precisely because they obeyed the existing gun control laws.  Their resulting inability to defend themselves got 14 of them killed.

What if the Jihadists had known that 2, 3 or 10 of the people who they planned to attack were packing heat?  What if they’d known that if they showed up with two AK-47s, they’d have to face off against ten people packing 9mm pistols or 45 semi-automatics?

More gun control would not have saved the San Bernardino victims.  It’s gun control that got them killed.

 

•  That opinion is not radical hyperbole.

The Economist is a widely-respected English news magazine that agrees that gun control is hazardous to your health.  As reported by The Washington Examiner (“The Economist Speaks on U.S. Gun Control”), The Economist has studied the relationship between American gun ownership and gun violence and reached the following conclusions:

 

“Gun sales have doubled under President Obama while the gun murder rate has been cut in half since 1993, making America “a much safer place,” according to a new Economist analysis.

“Over 16 million new guns entered the U.S. marketplace in 2013, up from about 7 million when Obama was elected in 2008.

“‘America has become a much safer place over the past two decades, but public sentiment has yet to catch on to the fact.  In 1993, near the peak of America’s crime wave, seven out of every 100,000 people aged 12 and up were gunned down. That number has since halved,’ it said.”

 

Q:  What’s the lesson of the Economist’s report?

A:  More guns in the hands or more people actually make people safer.  The 14 who died and the 17 who were wounded in San Bernardino weren’t victims because gun control laws were too weak—they were the victims because gun control laws were too strong.

If half a dozen of those victims had had their own guns with them, the death and injury toll on the victims would’ve been smaller.  It’s likely that if the Jihadists had known they were bringing their weapons into a room where their intended targets were also armed, those Jihadists might not have bothered to attack.

The victims who died in San Bernardino didn’t die simply because the Jihadists had guns.  The victims died because they didn’t have guns. What’s true in San Bernardino is also true in Chicago.

 

•  If President Obama really wanted to protect the American people from gun violence he’d help enact laws that encouraged more people to own fire arms and allowed and encouraged people to carry those firearms in public.

If may be counter-intuitive for many to suppose that more guns result in fewer gun fatalities, but that’s only because we’ve been conditioned by government propaganda to believe gun control is a rational agenda.

The evidence is clear.  During the last 23 years, the number of guns in this country has doubled and the number of people killed with guns has fallen by half.

“Gun control nuts” are, at best, ignorant—at worst, treasonous.

The truth is this:  Gun control kills.

Gun control “nuts” can get you killed.

 
9 Comments

Posted by on February 22, 2016 in 2nd Amendment, Death by Government, Health Care

 

Tags: , ,

9 responses to “Gun Control Nuts

  1. digisoul@onebox.com

    February 22, 2016 at 9:52 PM

    Another great/comprehensive article as usual, Al. The most serious progression of the the “gun grabbing” issue being the death/murder of Scalia. As Heston so eloquently stated: “from my cold dead hands”. The “Quickening Clock” continues its inexorable progression. To the “Urbs”, get the HELLo out. It’s about the “G’s”: [unencumbered, arable, rural GROUND] away from the “urbs’, coasts, low-lying elevations, nuke plants, [neighbor] GROUPing, GUNS, GARDENing. The “Blessings from the Beginning” are DAILY being revealed to the Repenting.

     
  2. R. Jeka

    February 23, 2016 at 3:15 AM

    From 1990 to 1999 there were 824 gun deaths per year on average and the last few much lower with a harsher economy than those years all in all. With Bulls championships the media “hype” was lessened even further regarding issue. “In 2015, Chicago recorded 2,987 shooting victims and 488 homicides”

     
  3. R. Jeka

    February 23, 2016 at 3:35 AM

    Furthermore there are some other factors to take in account Last ten years 463.9 murders per year 2006 through 2015 and as stated 1990-99 824 per year on average. So murders are down 43.7 % and a major factor along with the economy is when projects were torn down gang turf wars increased due to relocations in others turfs. Hard to see why police are blamed when they most often arrive after the fact as most are gang and or drug-related. Then there’s those who are bystanders and such.Sure this month is on par with 1990-99 period though constant harping and media hype is alarming and adds to copy- cat and gangs are more likely to take it to the streets as the constant barrages does nothing more than add fuel to the fire. Economy, high cigarette taxing prices etc. Mike Grey wrote a fine book The Drug War How we got into this mess and how we can get out of it. He did screenplay on the China Syndrome. It was recommended by friend and after read first chapter agree he makes compelling arguments.

     
  4. R. Jeka

    February 23, 2016 at 3:41 AM

    In Chicago though I don’t see how arming more under-educated especially those using pcp etc would help the situation though no matter they will find a way to get despite laws that they won’t follow anyway. I do see benefit of law-abiding people and how they would lessen crimes in other respects.

     
  5. R. Jeka

    February 23, 2016 at 4:39 AM

    Like to make partial correction to above the 824,0 homicides from 1990-1999 is all homicides and would have to check which were gun-related though Mayor Emanuel could state that during his first 5 years homicides are down 44% with a more challenging economy as the homicides were 462.2 The decline in homicides in the last five years of Mayor Richard M. Daley’s tenure was 43,5 % with 465 murders again comparing average of homicides during 1990-99.

     
    • wholy1

      February 23, 2016 at 7:34 AM

      Good investigative analysis. Interesting. Just wondering what your take would be on the argument that a large number of responsible gun-toters would [eventually] dispatch the gun-toting criminals and whack-jobs with more effect/efficiency than the corrupt cops/courts/gov’t agents?

       
      • Adask

        February 23, 2016 at 10:58 AM

        I have no idea who would win the Gunfight at the OK Corral if the good guys squared off against the bad guys. What I do know is that a lot of people would be shot and very few bad guys are willing to take that risk on the good guys’ home court. It’s one thing to break into a house when you know there are no guns in that house. It’s an entirely different thing to break into a strange house when you know or suspect that the occupants have guns and have the home court advantage.

        For the most part, having guns for self-defense is less about shooting than intimidating. Bad guys are naturally attracted to the unarmed victims. They tend to avoid those who they think are, or could be, armed.

         
  6. Lyndon

    February 23, 2016 at 1:20 PM

    A country possesses weapons to deter enemies from attacking. Now take out word “country” and replace it with “man”. Simple.

     
  7. Jay

    February 23, 2016 at 9:50 PM

    Buy a rifle!

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s