by Thomas Sowell
Amid all the heated, emotional advocacy of gun control, have you ever heard even one person present convincing hard evidence that tighter gun control laws have in fact reduced murders?
Think about all the states, communities within states, as well as foreign countries, that have either tight gun control laws or loose or non-existent gun control laws. With so many variations and so many sources of evidence available, surely there would be some compelling evidence somewhere if tighter gun control laws actually reduced the murder rate.
And if tighter gun control laws don’t actually reduce the murder rate, then why are we being stampeded toward such laws after every shooting that gets media attention?
Have the media outlets that you follow ever even mentioned that some studies have produced evidence that murder rates tend to be higher in places with tight gun control laws?
The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws.
In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.
What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter.
The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious, just because the media pay no attention to them.
Many people who have never fired a gun in their lives, and never faced life-threatening dangers, nevertheless feel qualified to impose legal restrictions that can be fatal to others. And politicians eager to “do something” that gets them publicity know that the votes of the ignorant and the gullible are still votes.
Virtually nothing that is being proposed in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates.
Restricting the magazine capacity available to law-abiding citizens will not restrict the magazine capacity of people who are not law-abiding citizens. Such restrictions just mean that the law-abiding citizen is likely to run out of ammunition first.
Someone would have to be an incredible sharpshooter to fend off three home invaders with just seven shots at moving targets. But seven is the magic number of bullets allowed in a magazine under New York State’s new gun control laPeople who support such laws seem to blithely assume that they are limiting the damage that can be done by criminals or the mentally ill – as if criminals or mad men care about such laws.
Banning so-called “assault weapons” is a farce, as well as a fraud, because there is no concrete definition of an assault weapon. That is why so many guns have to be specified by name in such bans – and the ones specified to be banned are typically no more dangerous than others that are not specified.
Some people may think that “assault weapons” means automatic weapons. But automatic weapons were banned decades ago. Banning ugly-looking “assault weapons” may have aesthetic benefits, but it does not reduce the dangers to human life in the slightest. You are just as dead when killed by a very plain-looking gun.
One of the dangerous inconsistencies of many, if not most, gun control crusaders is that those who are most zealous to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are often not nearly as concerned about keeping violent criminals behind bars.
Leniency toward criminals has long been part of the pattern of gun control zealots on both sides of the Atlantic. When the insatiable desire to crack down on law-abiding citizens with guns is combined with an attitude of leniency toward criminals, it can hardly be surprising when tighter gun control laws are accompanied by rising rates of crime, including murders.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif. He is the author of 28 books, including "Dismantling America" and "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy."
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
A Legal Immigrant Testifies Against Gun Control
On Monday (01/28/2013), a public hearing on gun violence was held in Hartford, Conn. At that hearing, a legal immigrant, Henson Ong issued a passionate defense of the Second Amendment and argued that gun control simply does not work.
IT IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH FACTS!
"Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my opinion and give my testimony in opposition to the majority of the proposed bills, which do nothing to deter future crimes; Gun control doesn’t work."
"Your own history is replete with high school rifle teams, boy scout marksmanship merit badges; You could buy rifles at hardware stores, you could order them… your country was awash in readily available firearms and ammunition, and yet in your past you did not have mass school shootings. What changed? It was not that the availability of guns suddenly exploded or increased, it actually was decreased. What changed was societal decay!
"If gun control actually did work, Washington, D.C. and Chicago would be the safest cities in your nation. But [they are] not, they have the toughest gun laws and the highest crime and murder rates."
“My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime usually do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when all other rights have failed. A free people can only afford to make this mistake once.”
Ed's Note: Studies show--In reality, school shooting deaths have actually experienced a steady decline between 1993 and 2010!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
IT IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH FACTS!
"Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my opinion and give my testimony in opposition to the majority of the proposed bills, which do nothing to deter future crimes; Gun control doesn’t work."
"Your own history is replete with high school rifle teams, boy scout marksmanship merit badges; You could buy rifles at hardware stores, you could order them… your country was awash in readily available firearms and ammunition, and yet in your past you did not have mass school shootings. What changed? It was not that the availability of guns suddenly exploded or increased, it actually was decreased. What changed was societal decay!
"If gun control actually did work, Washington, D.C. and Chicago would be the safest cities in your nation. But [they are] not, they have the toughest gun laws and the highest crime and murder rates."
“My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime usually do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when all other rights have failed. A free people can only afford to make this mistake once.”
by Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissent on the case of Silveira v. Lockye in 2002.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
It Is Not About Crime Control!
The mantra of the Obama administration has been, “Never let a crisis go to waste!”
The Newtown massacre is no exception!
When word of the shooting reached Washington, sources tell me, that there were high-fives and cheers among White House and Justice Staffers. One was heard to comment, “This is far better than ‘Fast and Furious’.” That person was referring to the Administrations failed attempt at gleaning public support for ‘gun-control’ by supplying Mexican crime lords with firearms sold in the U.S.
We could make a long listing of data base supported facts like-
Australia and Great Briton, both of which have very strict gun laws, have a violent crime rate is at least twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.; or that murders have greatly diminished in Washington D.C., were gun restrictions have been reduced, while Chicago which has a total ban on handguns experienced 500 murders in 2012 alone. And the list goes on………
To any logical thinker the facts are over whelming that “more guns equal less crime”.
But such facts are not of any interest to those that want to ban/register/confiscate your firearms.
The truth is that the Left does not care whether-or-not disarming American citizens has any effect on crimes. It is not crime that they are seeking to end.
What the gun grabber’s really want is a disarmed American citizenry. The U.S. has in just a few short years, been transformed from a constitutionally defined Representative Republic into a Socialist state of soft tyranny with little or no regard for the Constitution. It is not by accident that the Administration and their propaganda machine (ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.) refer to us a “the workers”. If the Administration has their way, we will soon have no Constitution and be well on our way to a hard Soviet form of tyranny.
As it stands right now, the only thing in their way is more than 100 million armed citizens.
If you think that it can’t happen here, read the histories of all the other nations where it could not happen. Or here at home look at how the EPA has overridden Congress on Energy and carbon emissions, how Obama operates without a budget, spends monies that have not been approved by Congress, is unilaterally dismantling our Nuclear Deterrent, and has given billions of dollars to his cronies.
It is not the guns that the Administration wants to control, it is you!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
The Newtown massacre is no exception!
When word of the shooting reached Washington, sources tell me, that there were high-fives and cheers among White House and Justice Staffers. One was heard to comment, “This is far better than ‘Fast and Furious’.” That person was referring to the Administrations failed attempt at gleaning public support for ‘gun-control’ by supplying Mexican crime lords with firearms sold in the U.S.
We could make a long listing of data base supported facts like-
Australia and Great Briton, both of which have very strict gun laws, have a violent crime rate is at least twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.; or that murders have greatly diminished in Washington D.C., were gun restrictions have been reduced, while Chicago which has a total ban on handguns experienced 500 murders in 2012 alone. And the list goes on………
To any logical thinker the facts are over whelming that “more guns equal less crime”.
But such facts are not of any interest to those that want to ban/register/confiscate your firearms.
The truth is that the Left does not care whether-or-not disarming American citizens has any effect on crimes. It is not crime that they are seeking to end.
What the gun grabber’s really want is a disarmed American citizenry. The U.S. has in just a few short years, been transformed from a constitutionally defined Representative Republic into a Socialist state of soft tyranny with little or no regard for the Constitution. It is not by accident that the Administration and their propaganda machine (ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.) refer to us a “the workers”. If the Administration has their way, we will soon have no Constitution and be well on our way to a hard Soviet form of tyranny.
As it stands right now, the only thing in their way is more than 100 million armed citizens.
If you think that it can’t happen here, read the histories of all the other nations where it could not happen. Or here at home look at how the EPA has overridden Congress on Energy and carbon emissions, how Obama operates without a budget, spends monies that have not been approved by Congress, is unilaterally dismantling our Nuclear Deterrent, and has given billions of dollars to his cronies.
It is not the guns that the Administration wants to control, it is you!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
CH 7: The myth of Obama as state Senate Reformer
The following is a reprint from a Special Report published by the Washington Examiner dated September 20, 2012. A link to the Washington Examiner maybe found in our 'Links' Listings.
Former Illinois state Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, a maverick Republican and reformer, said Obama never fought corruption, by Republicans or by Democrats: "He never wanted to upset the apple cart with the Chicago machine." Shortly after Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, Prairie State Blue, a liberal blog, attributed his victory to the fact that Illinois' deeply entrenched government corruption had forced "political reformers" in the state legislature like Obama "to network outside the traditional political circles."
The claim illustrated Obama's success throughout his career at presenting himself as an outsider and reformer even as he became a skillful operator inside one of the nation's most corrupt political systems.
Earlier this year, a study by the Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs pointed to the convictions in recent years of four governors, two congressmen, a state treasurer, an attorney general and 11 state legislators.
"The two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor's mansion in Springfield and the City Council Chambers in Chicago," said study author Dick Simpson.
It was into such an environment that Obama stepped when he was first elected in 1996 as an Illinois state senator.
Former Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, a maverick Republican and reformer, told The Washington Examiner that Obama never fought corruption, even when it was being done by Republicans.
"I've never seen him fight corruption. He never wanted to upset the apple cart with the Chicago machine," Fitzgerald said.
After serving with Obama for two years in the Illinois Senate, Fitzgerald defeated Sen. Carol Moseley Braun in 1998 and served one term in the U.S. Senate. His family has been in Illinois banking for several generations.
In Springfield, Fitzgerald was a leader of a reform-minded state legislative caucus known as the "Fab Five." The group's members were Republicans who had been elected in 1992. They fought the establishments in both major parties while seeking to increase openness and transparency in government.
Fab Fiver Steve Rauschenberger told the Examiner that he and his reformist colleagues were taken aback when Obama rejected the group's informal invitations to join them.
"When Barack first arrived, there was a lot of hope that maybe he was the intellectual bridge, the pragmatic Democrat from Chicago who was not part of the machine that we could perhaps talk to about broad-based consensus policies to change public policy that wasn't working," he said.
"He appeared to be interested for a good 90 days," Rauschenberger said. "In March or April of that year, though, he had made it pretty clear he wasn't interested in risk-taking or challenging institutions or challenging the Chicago machine's lock on a lot of the mechanics of government in Cook County in Chicago."
An Examiner review of Fab Five initiatives from 1995 to 2000 identified 22 proposals, including sweeping government procurement reforms like requiring open, competitive bidding for state contracts. Obama missed votes on several of the proposals, and those he supported were approved unanimously.
"He was nowhere to be found on reform," Fab Fiver Chris Lauzen told the Examiner. "I reached out to Barack. My wife and I took Barack and Michelle to dinner."
Lauzen said Obama "was not on the playing field. In my opinion, Barack Obama was a product and beneficiary of how politics are practiced in Illinois. It would be impossible to call him a reformer."
State Sen. Dave Syverson, another Fab Fiver, said, "I don't recall any cases when he was overtly standing up to the machine at all."
Some of Obama's reluctance about the Fab Five may have stemmed from his occasional golf outings and lunches with the state's top gambling lobbyist, Alfred G. Ronan.
Ronan was well-known in Illinois political circles for passing out cash contributions to supporters off the floor of the legislative chambers. Obama himself took $10,500 from Ronan and changed his position on a gambling bill afterward, according to the Los Angeles Times. Ronan told the Times that Obama always paid his own way on the outings.
There was also the regular Wednesday night poker game organized by Democratic state Sen. Terry Link. Obama and three other state Senate Democrats in Springfield were regular attendees, along with several lobbyists, Link said.
"It started out with five of us, then it escalated where there were a couple of lobbyists that were friends of us that we brought in," Link told the Examiner.
"Barack was not of the machine, but he was adjacent to it," said Cynthia Canary, former director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, the largest statewide reform organization.
Paul Green, director of the Institute for Politics at Chicago's Roosevelt University and a popular WGN radio host, noted David Axelrod, Obama's campaign strategist, originated from Mayor Richard M. Daley's camp.
"You see his main adviser, David Axelrod, who also was Daley's chief adviser and ran his campaigns. So it was very much that Obama's people were in the Daley camp."
A month after Daley's patronage chief was indicted for rigging city jobs and promotions, Axelrod defended patronage in a 2005 Chicago Tribune op-ed. He argued that to satisfy constituent needs, politicians are often forced to "use the influence they have to meet those needs, including sometimes the exchange of favors -- consideration for jobs being just one."
Fitzgerald said Obama never confronted Daley. "He never took on Mayor Daley, even when clearly city hall was out of bounds. He never fought corruption in Cook County government."
Canary said Obama's endorsement of Rod Blagojevich and other Daley allies worried her.
"Obama has made a number of endorsements, not just the Blagojevich one -- he gave a number for the Chicago City Council that were complete whack jobs. I have never understood it or why he felt he needed to it," she said.
Some have noted that Obama helped write a 1997 legislative gift ban. The bipartisan effort included 23 exemptions.
Green pointed out that the gift ban didn't stop corruption. "In 1998, George Ryan was governor; now he's in prison. After him, Rod Blagojevich went to prison, so clearly it didn't have any impact."
Next: Chapter: 8 Obama's state pension scheme
Comments are invited!Send feedback to: WatchDog..
Former Illinois state Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, a maverick Republican and reformer, said Obama never fought corruption, by Republicans or by Democrats: "He never wanted to upset the apple cart with the Chicago machine." Shortly after Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, Prairie State Blue, a liberal blog, attributed his victory to the fact that Illinois' deeply entrenched government corruption had forced "political reformers" in the state legislature like Obama "to network outside the traditional political circles."
The claim illustrated Obama's success throughout his career at presenting himself as an outsider and reformer even as he became a skillful operator inside one of the nation's most corrupt political systems.
Earlier this year, a study by the Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs pointed to the convictions in recent years of four governors, two congressmen, a state treasurer, an attorney general and 11 state legislators.
"The two worst crime zones in Illinois are the governor's mansion in Springfield and the City Council Chambers in Chicago," said study author Dick Simpson.
It was into such an environment that Obama stepped when he was first elected in 1996 as an Illinois state senator.
Former Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, a maverick Republican and reformer, told The Washington Examiner that Obama never fought corruption, even when it was being done by Republicans.
"I've never seen him fight corruption. He never wanted to upset the apple cart with the Chicago machine," Fitzgerald said.
After serving with Obama for two years in the Illinois Senate, Fitzgerald defeated Sen. Carol Moseley Braun in 1998 and served one term in the U.S. Senate. His family has been in Illinois banking for several generations.
In Springfield, Fitzgerald was a leader of a reform-minded state legislative caucus known as the "Fab Five." The group's members were Republicans who had been elected in 1992. They fought the establishments in both major parties while seeking to increase openness and transparency in government.
Fab Fiver Steve Rauschenberger told the Examiner that he and his reformist colleagues were taken aback when Obama rejected the group's informal invitations to join them.
"When Barack first arrived, there was a lot of hope that maybe he was the intellectual bridge, the pragmatic Democrat from Chicago who was not part of the machine that we could perhaps talk to about broad-based consensus policies to change public policy that wasn't working," he said.
"He appeared to be interested for a good 90 days," Rauschenberger said. "In March or April of that year, though, he had made it pretty clear he wasn't interested in risk-taking or challenging institutions or challenging the Chicago machine's lock on a lot of the mechanics of government in Cook County in Chicago."
An Examiner review of Fab Five initiatives from 1995 to 2000 identified 22 proposals, including sweeping government procurement reforms like requiring open, competitive bidding for state contracts. Obama missed votes on several of the proposals, and those he supported were approved unanimously.
"He was nowhere to be found on reform," Fab Fiver Chris Lauzen told the Examiner. "I reached out to Barack. My wife and I took Barack and Michelle to dinner."
Lauzen said Obama "was not on the playing field. In my opinion, Barack Obama was a product and beneficiary of how politics are practiced in Illinois. It would be impossible to call him a reformer."
State Sen. Dave Syverson, another Fab Fiver, said, "I don't recall any cases when he was overtly standing up to the machine at all."
Some of Obama's reluctance about the Fab Five may have stemmed from his occasional golf outings and lunches with the state's top gambling lobbyist, Alfred G. Ronan.
Ronan was well-known in Illinois political circles for passing out cash contributions to supporters off the floor of the legislative chambers. Obama himself took $10,500 from Ronan and changed his position on a gambling bill afterward, according to the Los Angeles Times. Ronan told the Times that Obama always paid his own way on the outings.
There was also the regular Wednesday night poker game organized by Democratic state Sen. Terry Link. Obama and three other state Senate Democrats in Springfield were regular attendees, along with several lobbyists, Link said.
"It started out with five of us, then it escalated where there were a couple of lobbyists that were friends of us that we brought in," Link told the Examiner.
"Barack was not of the machine, but he was adjacent to it," said Cynthia Canary, former director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, the largest statewide reform organization.
Paul Green, director of the Institute for Politics at Chicago's Roosevelt University and a popular WGN radio host, noted David Axelrod, Obama's campaign strategist, originated from Mayor Richard M. Daley's camp.
"You see his main adviser, David Axelrod, who also was Daley's chief adviser and ran his campaigns. So it was very much that Obama's people were in the Daley camp."
A month after Daley's patronage chief was indicted for rigging city jobs and promotions, Axelrod defended patronage in a 2005 Chicago Tribune op-ed. He argued that to satisfy constituent needs, politicians are often forced to "use the influence they have to meet those needs, including sometimes the exchange of favors -- consideration for jobs being just one."
Fitzgerald said Obama never confronted Daley. "He never took on Mayor Daley, even when clearly city hall was out of bounds. He never fought corruption in Cook County government."
Canary said Obama's endorsement of Rod Blagojevich and other Daley allies worried her.
"Obama has made a number of endorsements, not just the Blagojevich one -- he gave a number for the Chicago City Council that were complete whack jobs. I have never understood it or why he felt he needed to it," she said.
Some have noted that Obama helped write a 1997 legislative gift ban. The bipartisan effort included 23 exemptions.
Green pointed out that the gift ban didn't stop corruption. "In 1998, George Ryan was governor; now he's in prison. After him, Rod Blagojevich went to prison, so clearly it didn't have any impact."
Next: Chapter: 8 Obama's state pension scheme
Comments are invited!Send feedback to: WatchDog..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
