Every time there is a tragedy involving guns the usual authoritarian suspects come crawling out of the woodwork seeking to ban guns under the guise of gun control. The same falsehoods get spewed over and over again with the hope that some people ignorant of the facts and in an emotionally vulnerable state will buy into the hype and join the ranks of useful idiots. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the facts do not change. Here are a few of the facts; make of them what you will.
The most prominent group advocating for gun control in New York is Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. What could be wrong with a group of selfless, sober minded public servants trying their hardest to ensure that the citizens of their fine cities are safe from the scourges of gun violence? A major clue that something is seriously wrong is the fact that a member of MAIG is, at a minimum, 3 times (and possibly 45 times) more likely than someone in the general population to be convicted of a crime. Not just any crime either – we’re not talking about shoplifting or parking ticket scofflaws – rather, the crimes include perjury, embezzlement, bribery, racketeering, domestic violence, assault, attempted child molestation, tax evasion, extortion, money laundering and much more. No wonder they don’t think people should possess guns!
The hits keep on coming. One of the mayors was convicted only a few weeks ago at the end of November.
Given that yet another member of Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors was convicted on theft charges just last week, I’d say this new project coming from the Second Amendment Foundation is quite timely. [See this PDF for a list of wrongdoings courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation’s “Meet The Mayors” ad campaign]
Maybe these city leaders are just a bunch of party poopers since many members of MAIG couldn’t pass the standard FBI instant background check.
The system is designed to deny transactions for anyone who has been under indictment or convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more in prison or for assaulting a spouse or child.
As Mr. Gottlieb noted, “Maybe Mayor Bloomberg should be looking for background checks of who he signs up to be in his mayor’s coalition rather than worrying about background checks of gun owners.”
Mayor Bloomberg held a press conference this past weekend to throw out some scary numbers that he got, conveniently, from an anti gun group called…. Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Bloomberg stated that
the president must take “immediate action” and show leadership on the issue. “If he does nothing during his second term, something like 48,000 Americans will be killed with illegal guns,” Bloomberg said of Obama. “That is roughly the number of Americans killed in the whole Vietnam War.”
There are two major flaws with the numbers he presented. The first major problem is how that 48,000 figure was derived.
The CDC released its final data for causes of deaths in 2009 in December 2011. Firearms were responsible for 11,493 homicides as a result of an assault, according to the report. The CDC did not release a four-year projection as Bloomberg or his group implies. Mayors Against Illegal Guns simply multiplied the number of deaths in 2009 by four and claimed it was a projection.
MAIG simply rounded up to 12,000 deaths per year for four years. Why 12,000 instead of 11,500? That’s a difference of 2,000 incidents. Maybe 48,000 sounded sexier than a mere 46,000. Regardless of MAIG’s motivation in making up numbers the reality is that the numbers seem to be trending downwards, with the preliminary 2011 CDC report indicating a decline of 392 down to 11,101. The overall trend is heading downward so there should be an even more significant gap between Bloomberg’s fantasy figures and reality. Focusing too hard on the numbers may allow another important point to slip under the radar:
Additionally, the word “illegal” is used one time in the CDC report in reference to drugs not guns. Mayor Bloomberg simply assumes that all gun deaths were the result of “illegal” guns.
Whoops, guess Bloomberg never heard the old adage about “not assuming”. Penn & Teller have an excellent (although NSFW) bit about gun control’s effectiveness (or lack thereof).
Attempts by the New York Times and other venerable publications engaging in shoddy journalism notwithstanding, the statistics show that those amongst us who carry a concealed firearm legally are far more peaceful than the general population.
OK, I have a question. I know you Times writers are “journalists”, but can’t anyone in your entire organization do simple math? I mean go to your accounting folks, oh wait, they can only add negative numbers like your plummeting revenue. Aside from the visceral, pants-wetting fear that armed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging albeit law-abiding regular Joes walking the streets causes in pantywaist milquetoast liberals, concealed carry is not dangerous. Well, unless you’re a bad guy who tries something stupid with one of those regular Joes around. Then it could be painful, perhaps even fatal.
Not everyone is willing to let the media off the hook so easily. CNN’s Don Lemon explicitly said on video “it doesn’t matter that gun violence is down” and Big Journalism calls him out on it:
Lemon, who poses as an unbiased journalist, not only dismissed logic that might lead to a real solution to these mass shootings, but he’s such an ideologue, he doesn’t even care about a potential correlation between gun control laws and violence.
How in the world are we going to solve this problem when you have anti-fact/anti-science journalists focusing on emotion instead of common sense and data? A cheap appeal to emotion through your “verge of tears” might make you feel better, but it isn’t going to save anyone’s life. Neither is ignoring statistics inconvenient to your ideology.
The NYT is not “perpetuating myths,” it is consciously and knowingly lying with malice aforethought in an effort to push through various gun ban and confiscation laws which it greatly desires.
To pretend that they are making errors in good conscience is the myth that needs to be destroyed here. None of the facts Carney so painstakingly lays out here – and this is only the ten thousandth, or ten millionth, time these facts have been carefully, and publicly, pointed out – are hard to come by. In fact, if you are honest, they are impossible to avoid.
Mark Levin points out the fly in the ointment for those calling for more gun control, raising one conspicuous case of a mass shooting that the media is assiduously avoiding bringing to the forefront – the Fort Hood massacre.
How come Obama did not mention Fort Hood where 13 human beings were slaughtered and there were several survivors. Because, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, Fort Hood is a military enclave, it’s a base. You can’t have more control than that.
Number two, they had all kinds of rules of who can carry weapons and who can’t there. And fortunately, a lot of men and women in uniform aren’t allowed to carry weapons unless they’re on duty. All kinds of gun control on that base.
But, number three, it had nothing to do with gun control. It had everything to do with political correctness run amok, costing the lives of 13 human beings.
Another reason why a gun ban will not work is because technology is rapidly reaching the point of enabling anyone to make a gun at home, cheaply, easily, and untraceable.
A 3D-printed gun, were it only to fire one shot before melting or failing, is still a gun. After that, the difference is only in what kind of gun it is.
Of course printed guns don’t and won’t constitute the major part of the ideas in such a major and divisive debate as gun control. But that does not obviate the fact that we can print guns. We can do so today, and the ability to do so is only improving. It is very important to note that one need not take a side in the debate to acknowledge this. And it is very important that we acknowledge this now, so that we are not forced to acknowledge it later, when it will be too late to take either side…
Part of the discussion has to be that, government or otherwise, there can be no more control over printed guns than there can be over printed spoons. Regulation or banning of firearms, whether you think the idea is good or bad, will soon be impossible.
Even when it comes to potential solutions the media and gun control proponents show their true colors as fanatics issuing death threats to those that disagree with them. In light of the fact that it took police 20 minutes to show up at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newton, Connecticut there are calls from many places (including police chiefs) to arm teachers – more specifically to allow teachers bear arms on school grounds. The response to such common sense ideas has been full blown hysteria from the teacher’s union, the American Federation of Teachers:
“Permitting firearms in schools—visible or concealed—enables a dangerous set of circumstances that can result in similar tragic outcomes,” Weingarten and Hecker added in calling for Snyder to veto the legislation. “We should be doing everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools, and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property and ensure the safety of children and school employees.”
The mind boggles at such dangerous idiocy. If their smart they ignore this imbecile and quietly pack heat.
Meanwhile, if you’re a teacher who has self-preservation in mind, a kindly dealer is now offering discounts. Of course the idiots think this is a bad idea.
“I knew this would come up at some point, there would be people who think the answer is to put guns on campus. Frankly I think it’s absurd,” says Gayle Fallon with the American Federation of Teachers. “In a lot of cases, the perpetrator is a kid. Look at Columbine, it was a 14-year-old kid. You tell me a teacher is going to look in the eyes of a 14-year-old and pull the trigger — it’s not in their emotional make up.”
David Kopel writing at the Wall Street Journal points out yet another inconvenient fact that the gun control crowd like to studiously avoid.
The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney’s Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.
At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer’s next shot was to kill himself.
Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.
People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.
There is a whole bunch more to the article and worth reading in its entirety.
Note that the calls for civilian disarmament come from people who rely on armed security for their safety and well being. Why are any of their lives more valuable than your own? Why do those people have a fetish with infringing on your rights as a peaceful American citizen because bad people do bad things?
Do politicians who call for a ban on certain guns have no capacity for self reflection, no realization that the federal government
spends wastes billions of (your tax) dollars on “the war on drugs” and yet local criminals everywhere from Nowheresville Township to New York City can get you those drugs quickly, reliably, and at a reasonable price? Are we to believe that drug dealers, who are very often members of a gang and responsible for much of the gun violence in this country, will be unable to get guns no matter what any law says about guns being banned?