Thursday, March 18, 2004

Liberals and Guns

Liberals don’t like guns, because they are afraid of them, and view them as tools for murder. In reality, there is no reason to fear them- you must simply understand them. Guns are good for a large number of reasons; I will examine just a few of them.

First of all, when the citizenry is armed, the crime rate is always lower. Look at what's happened to the UK - they took away guns from their law-abiding citizens and their violent crime rate rose to be the highest among first-world nations. Their armed crime rate is still on the rise. Look at our capitol city, D.C., that has both the toughest gun laws and the highest crime rate of any city in the country. You must accept the fact that the bad guys will always have guns, and it is therefore morally wrong to deprive the law abiding citizens of their right to protect themselves. The police cannot protect you - they have actually said so themselves. In 1978, the D.C. Superior Court ruled that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." This quote comes from a decision about a case in which three women were beaten, raped, and held captive for 14 hours, even though they had called 911 twice. The police didn't come.

Then there is, of course, our Constitution - which guarantees our right to bear arms. If you think the second amendment refers only to the militia, you should examine the pre-Revolutionary War individual State Constitutions (which greatly influenced our national one), and the early post-war ones as well. For example, Both Pennsylvania and Vermont's Constitutions state "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state." Kentucky: "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Mississippi and CT: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Rhode Island: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice the emphasis on self-defense, not just on national-defense. Like it or not, bearing arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

I dug up some more stats for the non-believers. First, on the failure of the UK gun ban: According to the Telegraph (not a Conservative paper by any means) the crime rate in London has nearly tripled since the introduction of the gun ban. Specifically, there were 939 crimes involving firearms in a ten-month period in 2002, as compared with only 322 in the same period in the year 2001. Also, for example: "In Merseyside there were 57 shootings during the 12 months to last December compared with 15 in the same period the year before". This proves that banning guns certainly doesn't keep them out of criminals' hands. In the United States, a city called Kennesaw in GA passed a gun law 22 years ago (March 1982) that makes it mandatory for citizens to own firearms. Their crime rate dropped 89% overall, crime against people dropped 74% in the first year and 45% the next. Since the passage of the law they have had only three murders, and only one with a firearm.Some more gun facts: The US governments’ stats report that a total of 824 people died from accidents involving firearms in 1999. At the same time, a report by Criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that Americans use firearms for personal defense against criminals as many as 2.5 million times a year. Would you rather have 800 people killed per year, or have the more than two million people who use firearms defensively every year robbed, raped, and/or killed?

Dr. Kellermann of Emory University, who you will see is a quack, found that owning a firearm made you 3 times as likely to be killed by one. His findings are laughable, as he didn't bother to mention that most of the people who owned firearms and were killed were criminals, either shot by law-abiding citizens, the police, or (in the drug cases) other criminals. What Dr. Kellermann has actually proved is that guns are bad for a criminal's health – after all, they're the ones getting shot. Since the 1987 passage of Florida's must-issue-concealed-carry-permit law, less than .0002% of legal gun owners have used their guns to commit a crime. This means that you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator in Florida as you are to be attacked by a citizen with a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit. States that pass CCW laws allowing concealed carry of firearms on average lower their yearly murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. In 1976, Georgia made it easier for people to get guns, while Wisconsin made it harder by enacting a wait-period law. Georgia's murder rate dropped by 21% while Wisconsin's rose by 33% during the same period. On average, states banning CCW have murder rates 127% higher than states allowing free carry.

How do the liberals look at self-defense in general and guns in particular? We can look back to England for our answer, where a BBC radio program asked listeners to suggest a piece of legislation that they felt would most improve life in Britain. After 26,000 votes were cast, the winning proposal was one that would allow Brits “to use any means to defend their home from intruders.” (Believe it or not, citizens of the UK no longer have this basic human right). Stephen Pound, a wacko liberal MP (Member of Parliament) called this a “ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation.” He continued, “The people have spoken…the bastards.” As Pound told The Independent “Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs into your window?” In other words, if it’s a question of you or the criminal who just broke into your house, Mr. Pound would rather the criminal was the one who survived. Back in the US, the most liberal congressmen are very similar. As Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” They continue to push these policies despite the fact that a strong majority of Americans (79%) are in favor of right-to-carry laws.

So, we are left with the question “If guns are so good, why doesn’t everybody know?” The reason, for the most part, is that the media deliberately distorts the facts, and puts firearms in a bad light. As John R. Lott Jr., author of The Bias Against Guns points out, guns are used defensively four times more often than they are to commit crimes. Nevertheless, the television networks ABC, CBS, and NBC together ran 190,000 words of gun-crime anti-gun coverage in 2001, and not a single story about guns being used to prevent crime. The newspapers were nearly as bad: “The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story [on defensive gun use] on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.”

We have all seen the media adds that talk about the frequency with which children accidentally shoot each other. The bias with these starts in that it defines children as “people up to 18 years old” (so you are still a child during your freshman year in college) and neglects to exclude the cases in which young criminals shot each other. In reality, in the year 1999, only 6 children under ten were shot by other children. More children under the age of five drown in bathtubs or plastic water buckets than die from guns. When there is an accidental child-death from gunshot, the individual cases have gotten up to 88 separate news stories. When children use guns defensively (which does actually happen) the cases are not covered at all in national media.

As far as biased reporting goes, CNN is in a class by itself. CNN once did a story to show how effective the Clinton Gun Ban was in reducing the damage that guns can cause. In reality, the only difference between guns banned under the 1994 gun ban and legal ones is appearance – the guns function exactly the same and use the same ammo (for the full story visit www.clintongunban.com). Nevertheless, CNN had to show how good the gun ban is, so here is what they did: The set up some cinderblocks and a bullet-proof vest on a shooting range, and announced that they would fire a pre-ban gun at them to show how much damage it could do. While the camera was on the targets, they fired away, and you could see the bullets smash the cinderblocks and go through the vest. Then they said they would do the same thing with a post-ban (legal) gun. With the camera still pointed downrange, the gun fired, but the targets remained undamaged. CNN later admitted that during the “test” of the post-ban gun, the man on the trigger deliberately fired into the ground and did not even shoot at the targets!

There is a lot of honest information about guns our there, but you have to look hard to find it. I have dozens more stories about how the liberals can use distorted and spun statistics to support their case (for the Dems this is SOP), so it will take a while for me to write about all of them. In the meantime, just think about the preceding paragraphs.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home