The debate on gun control is once again gaining momentum thanks to sleazy Democrats. Case in point is that on Thursday, one of those sleazy Democrats, Senator Diane Feinstein, outlined her plans to introduce sweeping legislation that goes so far as to include fingerprinting and registration of all those who currently own so-called semi-automatic "assault" weapons. It's funny, funny strange, not funny ha-ha, thought that it's always those who are in favor of a total ban on all types of firearms who most often point to countries like England and Australia to assist them in making their point. These, of course, are countries where firearms are banned or virtually impossible to possess. A look into the statistics might offer some clarity, though, about how safe such a move actually makes a country.
Let’s start right here at home. From 2009 to 2011, homicides overall declined slightly according to a 2011 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, with a corresponding drop in homicides by firearms. In fact, the report says homicide is not among the top 15 leading causes of death in America. (As recently as 2009, the CDC reported that homicide was in the top 15 at #15.) Instead: 1) Accidents (unintentional deaths) were #5 and Suicide (intentional harm) has held solid as the 10th leading cause of death for several years. 2) The stats from 2009 show that homicides totaled 16,799, with 11,493 of those attributed to guns. 3) During that same year, motor vehicle deaths were nearly triple that of gun-related deaths — 34,485 vs. 11,493. 4) Death from accidental falls totaled 24,792, almost double the firearms homicide total.
The stats for gun deaths have actually shown some pretty significant declines in the past two decades. Looking at the graph at the top of this post, I think that it's worth noting that deaths caused by "other guns" has been relatively flat since 1985. The assault weapons ban, you may, or may not, recall was in place from 1994-2004. After which it was allowed to expire after having little or no impact. And what about the argument most often made by the gun control nuts on the Left quoting the success of oppressive gun laws in countries like Australia and England? A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joyce Lee Malcolm shows that argument to be hollow: "After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime has doubled."
Ms. Malcom’s article also details what happened after Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 people by a madman armed with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. What effect did this have on crime? Well, "A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%." But during that very same period of time, right here in 'gun crazy' America, deaths attributed to firearms dropped by nearly ten times that of the decline seen in Australia.
Also, restricting or confiscating handguns seems to have had almost no effect on homicides in Australia and the stats also show that the law had no real effect on suicides. "Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up," Malcom notes. And what about the oft-cited British gun laws? Have they done the job? Restrictive gun laws have been around for almost 100 years in England, and Malcolm reports that getting a permit requires proving to police that you have a "good reason" for needing a gun. And apparently self defense is not considered to be a good reason in England. Following a 1987 shooting in the British town of Hungerford, the Brits enacted stricter controls. And in 1998, a near-total ban on gun ownership followed another mass shooting. Were these moves a success?
Well, within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled and those statistics come to us according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, has now become one. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the very first time. Now there is little doubt that the Senate will soon put forth new legislation regarding gun ownership, especially as it relates to so-called 'assault' weapons, for which the definition remains more than just a little murky. However, those making the argument that banning guns has worked in places like Australia and England might be advised to check those pesky little things called facts or, they may end up risk looking rather foolish if they happen to encounter someone armed with those facts.
But having said that, I think most of us realize that Democrats care very little about facts, or about looking foolish. What's most important to them is that they be able to move forward with their leftist agenda. Just like their quest to allow the government to seize control of our healthcare, there is now a drive to rob us of us our ability to defend ourselves. To defend ourselves not only against some unwanted intruder, but from a tyrannical government. These politicians, these pathetic DEMOCRATS, are doing nothing more than to use the death of children as their method of choice in trying to convince us that we must now all turn in our guns. Personally, if I was a parent of one of those victims from Newtown, I'd be pissed if a bunch of slimy politicians were using the death of my child to rob from the American people one of their God given rights!
No comments:
Post a Comment