“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.