Disspelling the Myth of Gun Control Laws
With the events this past weekend in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, where 12 people were killed and 58 injured by a gunman, the renewed controversy of restricting private citizen's rights to keep and bear arms has been raised by many Democratic leaders. So does restricting the possession, sale or transferring of firearms or ammo actually work?
The city of Chicago, one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States, has the toughest gun laws in the country with an all out ban on the possession, sale and transfer of handguns, as well as limiting the size of the magazines and restricting certain types of ammunition. They have had aggressive buy-back programs that offer a $100 gift card for every firearm turned in to the Chicago Police Department and $10 for toy guns or replica firearms.
One would believe that Chicago should be one of the safest metropolitan cities, yet according to the Chicago Police Department, 2012 has seen 272 murders to date. That is more than the total number of U.S. servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan in 2012 to date.
This weekend alone, there were 35 murders in Chicago. That is one shy of three times the number killed in Aurora, Colorado. Three times!!! This is in a city that every handgun is illegal. Since 2008, 530 children under the age of 21, have been killed in Chicago. Yet they have, along with Illinois state laws, the strictest gun laws in the country.
The Constitution''s Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, but not in Chicago, Illinois. And they are paying the price. Why? Because the government authorities in the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois systematically disarmed the law-abiding citizenry.
You see, the person that wants to kill someone, doesn't care about the law. The laws clearly state that you can't intentionally kill another person. They don't follow that law either. And then there is the circumstances of the psychotic killer. These people have no regard for human life, let alone gun laws.
90 seconds passed from the first to last shot. While the police response time was admirable, it was time enough to take 12 innocent lives, and injure 58 others. Liberals say that if private citizens would have been able to carry their guns into the theater, filled with tear gas and chaos, they could have caused more deaths and created more chaos. Wouldn't the same be true with armed police officers in the same conditions?
The liberals also claim that it wouldn't have done any good anyway as the gunman had body armor on. Not true. He had on a Kevlar bulletproof vest. This man didn't want to die. Maybe confronted with death, he would have stopped. Maybe his arm or legs could have been shot dislodging the weapon. And Kevlar can be penetrated by a .45ACM handgun or 9mm, the preferred choice of conceal carry.
One thing we do know for sure. That left unchecked and undetoured, he killed 12 human beings and hurt another 58. And we know that one way or another, he would have obtained the weapontry he needed to carry out his attack.
And given the statistics in Chicago, we also know that violence perpetrated by guns will be carried out in higher numbers when the killer knows that he will face little resistance.
There are no guarantees that there would have been less carnage if someone was carrying a fire arm in that theater, but we will never know.
St. Swithin
9:37 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
So if Chicago has banned all handguns, where are these shooters getting them?
James R Hoffa
11:37 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@St. Swithin -
Ever hear of intra-state or inter-state commerce?
Last I checked, it was relatively easy to travel in and out of the City of Chicago. There's no stop and search policy at every conceivable City limit entry/exit point, thank heavens!
St. Swithin
12:42 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
That's my point. If gun makers and dealers outside of Chicago can easily circumvent the laws of Chicago, then Brian's argument is meaningless. If gun control laws cannot be enforced then their effectiveness cannot be measured. Washington D.C. and New York City have the same problem. Criminals simply travel to another state where gun dealers are happy to sell them lots of weapons for their 'self-defense'. Any gun control law that would have a chance of success would have to be a national one. But that is stymied by the second amendment.
Johnny Blade
12:51 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What is your freakin point .. criminals can't buy guns. I see St. Hitler you want a national gun law just like Hitler and Stalin .. Do you like to be a slave or are you an useful idiot for your tryant masters. Do you think the government can protect you from all harm?? ... The founders were pretty smart with the 2nd
St. Swithin
3:18 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@Johnny Blade - after whittling away all your useless blather, I find your point to be "criminals can't buy guns". The problem is that they can. More importantly, their friends can. Sales at gun shows and over the Internet often do not require a background check. Also, some gun stores ignore the requirement of a background check. But the real problem is that many licenses for gun dealers are just fronts for gangs to get weapons. Gang X has an acquaintance with a clean record. He pays a small fee to become licensed as a 'dealer'. Presto, the gang can call Colt, S&W, et al and order all the guns they like. The manufacturer happily ships 100 Berettas to PO Box 123, c/o Vinnie with the satisfaction that more law-abiding citizens will soon be exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Vinnie's mailing address is in some state that doesn't care about gun control. Vinnie picks up his order and drives back to Chicago.
James R Hoffa
5:19 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@St. Swithin -
Let's say that we effectively kill the 2nd Amendment and implement laws that prohibit the production, sale, and possession of all firearms, except to law enforcement and the military. That would still not stop other nations from continuing to produce and sell guns. Nor would it stop those guns from entering this country and ending up in the hands of criminals.
Case in point, very little if any cocaine and opium/heroin is actually grown/produced in this country, nor can it generally be legally imported, and yet, there is quite a bit of both products in this country. It would be exactly the same with guns.
So the only good that national legislation would do is take guns out of the hands of the righteous, thus providing the criminals with increased power and control of a large black market.
Johnny Blade
6:02 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Let me spell it out for you since you can't understand
1- it is illegal already for criminals to buy guns, even in your front group senario, it is illegal to murder someone .. so what else do you want to make illegal that in your little head will stop anyone from dying
2-You like Tryants Hitler Stalin, Pol Pot like disarmed citizens .. I wonder why, the MYTH of safety???? Hmmm Ben Franklin warned us
3- Do you think if you give up all your rights the government will keep you safe from all harm? ... If not why give up your rights?
Brian Dey
9:06 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
St. Swithin- That is the point. No matter what obstacles you put in front of gun ownership, bad people or crazy people wil circumvent the system. The shootings at a political camp in Demark is another illustration where tough gun laws and bans cannot prevent such incidences.
An left to feel that there will be little or no resistance, they are embolden to seek out these soft targets; i.e. theaters, restraunts, summer camps, high school and college campuses, etc...
Our founding fathers actually felt, or at least most of them, that self defense was a God-given right that no man could infringe upon; not even the federal government. Why do liberals feel that they know better? The facts pan out that gun control has the opposite effect of its intention.
St. Swithin
4:20 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Brian,
Your argument is totally unsupported. Do you honestly believe that if all the gun laws in Chicago were lifted today that gun-related crime would go down? I'm sorry, but that is a fantasy.
St. Swithin
4:27 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
@JRH - you use the example of smuggled drugs. That is not comparing apples to apples, though. Illegal drugs like cocaine are easy to grow in 3rd world countries and easy to smuggle. They are hard to detect and easy to carry. Weapons require an industrial base to manufacture. They are easy to detect with metal detectors. They are bulky to transport and cannot be broken down into 'dime bags' for easier distribution and profitable sales. Every single handgun maker today is in an industrialized country with a strict rule of law and treaties with the U.S. There is no evidence that a ban on weapons would lead to the creation of a weapons industry in places like Columbia or Afghanistan.
Heather in Caledonia
5:02 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
St. Swithin, unless, of course, a 1st world country's government gives guns to criminals in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Those guns could then be used against 1st world country law enforcement and also smuggled into 1st world countries..., but then, of course, that would never happen. :) I mean, it must be even harder to smuggle in humans and that hardly EVER happens, so it's next to impossible to smuggle weapons and ammo. Yup. ;)
Brian Dey
5:40 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
The states with the lowest murder rates are Vermont and New Hampshire. These two states rank among those with the weakest gun laws according to the FBI's most recent report on homicides and gun violence.
Of course these statistics don’t prove that laws are worthless. But what they do show is the limited capability of laws to determine outcomes in individual cases or to shape behavior in general. Laws are not to blame, the individuals who commit the crimes are. What we need to understand is what leads these people to commit such horrific acts of violence.
JL
11:11 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Criminals will always figure a way to commit the crime. There needs to be a balance between offering 9mm glock's with large capacity magazines for sale where you buy gas to responsible use of a firearm. however, its a knee jerk rejection when talk of gun control happens.
We all want to be safe ,but no one wants something taking away from them when it was "legal"
Do they need laws that say if you want more then 5 guns that you have to register every year?
Do we need stricter control of how much ammo you can buy?
Do you need to "register" the amount of ammo you buy?
for some any control is too much and others its not enough.
This battle will go on and on.
James R Hoffa
11:33 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I believe the point of Mr. Dey's blog is that controls only act to harm the righteous, as would be criminals don't obey the law anyway.
Johnny Blade
12:30 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Hitler and Stalin like disarmed citizens .. just like any Tyrant and some useful idiots as well
I don't want to be safe .. I want to be FREE
St. Swithin
3:19 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Another question for you, Keith. Why did Chicago implement such strict laws in the first place?
James R Hoffa
5:35 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Good question!
The only answer that makes any sense is because the City is controlled by liberal Democrats.
St. Swithin
4:17 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Sit down JRH. I believe the correct answer is that strict gun laws were implemented because gun-related crime was rising rapidly. So if law-abiding gun owners were unable to stop criminals before the strict gun laws, why would they be any more effective if those laws were removed? Brain has no data to support such a claim.
C. Sanders
3:47 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Chicago crime proves that if you have the money you can buy whatever you want and do so with complete indifference to the guns laws in effect in that city.
Johnny Blade
5:56 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I see Gwen Moore and Ron Kind voting against the Audit the Fed bill in the house .. wow the democrats like to portect the Banksters now .. The FED bails thier buddies out with our freakin tax dollars and these weasel democrats want to protect them .. Then Harry Reid says this is dead goin to the Senate what are you democrats hiding
a quiet conservative
7:25 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Don't forget Cuba has handgun ownership not allowed and Universal Healthcare.
And nice cars from the 1950's
Stormy Weather
12:25 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
@ Brian... Very well written!
Heather in Caledonia
8:45 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I'm confused on something - why are most liberals in favor of drug legalization, but opposed to legal gun ownership while most conservatives take just the opposite stance? As it's been pointed out, making drugs illegal has just setup a black market where we import them from other countries. Making firearms illegal will setup a black market (I'm assuming there already is one for assault weapons) where only criminals become armed.
Jim
10:39 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
People do not want to eliminate the second amendment but they do want some more reasonable chance that they or their loved ones can go about their business, like going to a theater, without having a crazed person with military weapons gun them down. As a hunter and shooter I do want to be able to have hunting and shooting weapons available to me to use or keep. I do not fear that limiting ownership to hunting weapons rather than allowing assault rifles, large clips, thousands of rounds of ammunition and bullet proof armor, will destroy the second amendment. We have limits on many things that protect our safety and still are able to have legal access to the basic objects. Reasonable limits for public safety are acceptable to me and most Americans.
Can government limitations on the type of weapons or ammunition available to the general public help to reduce (not eliminate) the chances of my family being killed with a gun by a maniac? I think the answer is yes, and I base that opinion on the statistics of gun deaths in the United States and other nations that do restrict weapons. Many European countries and Canada have a much lower rate of deaths by firearms than does the United States. We could reduce deaths by firearms and still continue to honor hunters and shooters the right to their sports by having reasonable and enforced laws restricting the ownership of military weapons and other devices not needed for legitimate hunting and shooting purposes.
Brian Dey
7:48 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Jim, there is no evidence that more gun laws will make you or your family safer. But the Chicago example, as well as New york and Los Angeles, support the opposite.