Posts Tagged With: Heller

What a Shock! More Guns Equals Less Crime!

I have maintained for years, as have many others on this side of the gun control debate, that more guns equals less crime and violence. The reason for that is simple: If the target of the criminal is armed, they are dangerous to the criminal, who passes them up for someone else less likely to kill him. We see the reverse in Great Britain, where guns are banned and crimes of violence have shot through the roof. We see it America as well, in places like Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. where, apparently, only criminals and cops may be armed, with the predictably bloody results among those caught in the crossfire.

Now, the State of Virginia, has offered-up of statistics to go with the argument that more guns equals a safer society. Times-Dispatch.com reports the following:

The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.

But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.

The numbers appear to contradict a long-running popular narrative that more guns cause more violent crime, said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who compared Virginia crime data for those years with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“While there is a wealth of academic literature attempting to demonstrate the relationship between guns and crime, a very simple and intuitive demonstration of the numbers seems to point away from the premise that more guns leads to more crime, at least in Virginia,” said Baker, who specializes in research methods and criminology theory and has an interest in gun issues.

So there you have a 63% increase in gun ownership, and a 27% decrease in gun-related crimes. This same dynamic is mirrored on the national level as well, with violent crime dropping 12% as gun ownership and concealed carry licensing shot up. Now, this is not a connection that the Left will ever admit, but if you add in the evidence coming out of Great Britain, Australia, Chicago, New York, Washington, California, and other places under the thumb of Leftist Nanny-statists that show fewer gun owners and higher crime; the correlation is impossible for all but the most ardent kool-aid drinkers to deny.

More Americans are buying guns than ever as the truth of this correlation between guns and violence sinks into the national psyche. The Leftist media, in answer, is ramping up the coverage of so-called gun crimes to try and make the public think that more guns equals more crime. It is a lie, they know it is a lie, but the American media is now driven by ideology rather than a sincerely desire for the truth. The same goes for the gun control movement, which shamelessly manipulates statistics to show how dangerous guns are. Their statistics on children killed by guns, for example, include gangbangers up to the age of 26. These are not children, but they are in there anyway. If their arguments had merit, if they were anything more than the knee-jerk reactions of Leftists and hopolophobes (a fear of weapons), these people would not have to lie.

But they do, and that is proof in and of itself that we are right about an armed society being a polite society; and regardless of the spurious arguments coming from the gun control crowd, it always has been, and it always will be.

Categories: CPL Law, Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Best is Yet to Come…

Last night, Obama won. Well, it strikes me that Obama did not win as much as Romney lost. Like the sadly genteel Republicans that went before him, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Romney conceded in spite of the fact that a) a number of states were still being counted; and b) the Democrats would have demanded recounts and filed lawsuits. They do that because they look at these elections as wars that they are determined to win. I am not sure how the Republicans see these contests, but they do not bring the passion and bloodlust of the Democrats, and that is one important reason why they are routinely beaten by the Left. Last night’s election left us in precisely the same governmental situation that we had before, with Obama in the White House, Harry Reid and his democrats running the Senate, and the Republicans running the House of Representatives. What has changed, however, is the fact that Obama cannot run for another term. As a result, he is free to do as he likes, something that the first term showed over and over that he will do regardless of Congress or the Courts.

So, what does this mean for gun owners? First, it means the likely signing and Senate passage of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty; which contains provisions that will force the country to enact highly restrictive gun control laws that will all but eliminate the private ownership of various types of guns from handguns to semi-auto rifles and shotguns. Because treaties are above domestic law, it will take a repudiation by a subsequent President, or a Supreme Court ruling, to get rid of. Speaking of the High Court, Obama has four years to stack the Court with John Paul Stevens type Leftists, who will be itching to overturn both Heller and McDonald, paving the way for the return of gun bans and confiscatory regulations. It also means the return of the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” either through the UN treaty or by executive order. Consider the Second Amendment plank in the Democrat Presidential Platform:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

The language above is vague enough to encompass anything they might want to foist upon the American People, and when coupled with Obama’s statement that “the best is yet to come,” that ought to give all of us serious moment of pause.

Given that Washington is, essentially, a lost cause, our only real hope now is in the states, exercising their 10th Amendment rights. Not all of them, mind you, but with Republicans now occupying 30 of the 50 Governor Offices, and more and more states passing laws to nullify what they see as outrageous power-grabbing by Washington over the last four years. If the best is yet to come, imagine how much more nullification laws will be passed by the states.

By the way, the last time the nation was this polarized, the last time states were nullifying federal laws at this level and pace, the year was 1860. The following year, 1861, there was a bit of a dust-up between the States that lasted until 1865, killing a total of about 625,000 Americans. I returning the most divisive, most arrogant, most anti-American president ever to power, what has this nation done to its children and grand-children? Whatever it is, it won’t be good.

Categories: Election 2012, Guns and Politics, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Window into the Mind of an Anti-Gun Liberal

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently got up in front of an October 15th lunch meeting sponsored by the Brady Campaign and, for lack of a better description, told them what they wanted to hear. “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside,” he told the crowd, “and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

There it is: You have a right to a cell phone that you can use to call for help; but you have no right to defend yourself. This should surprise no one. The Left is always looking to strip power and rights from individuals and bestow them on the State, and the right to self-defense has always been one of their favorite targets. The more dependent they can make the people on government, the more power they can garner for themselves.

Heller applied Second Amendment protection to individuals, which was step forward. However, it only applied to the Federal Government. McDonald saw the Second Amendment incorporated into the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment, thereby applying the Second Amendment to the states. The upshot of all this: As an individual, you have the right to keep and bear arms, free from unreasonable gun bans at either the federal or state level. To make it even more plain: Neither the federal nor the state government can ban the ownership of handguns. As you can imagine, that set the gun grabbers in both Washington D.C. and Chicago (not to mention their comrades and fellow travelers in other places as well) into a frenzy.

Stevens, always a leftist stooge schilling for the liberals every chance he could get, was every bit as exercised as then-Mayor of Chicago Richard M. Daley was when his pet gun ban was struck down. He wrote the dissents in Heller and McDonald; dissents that have drawn biting criticism for their vapid reasoning and ignorance of history. He is right about one thing, though: Heller and McDonald allow the State to restrict or eliminate the right to carry outside the home, ban certain styles of firearm, and require background checks for private gun sales. So does the Second Amendment. The question is, what does someone like Stevens, and the Leftists he speaks for, consider reasonable and properly constitutional regulation of firearms?

Go back to the retired justice’s remark (you have a right to a cell phone that you can use to call for help; but you have no right to defend yourself), and answer the question for yourself. Then answer this one: Is this the kind of person you really want in a position of power, the kind of person you want deciding what rights YOU should have?

As you stand in the voting booth next week, ask yourself those questions and vote accordingly.

Categories: Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.