The Gun Debate

From the Chicago Tribune earlier this month:

There were 192 shootings in Chicago throughout the month of November – a 49 percent increase from a year earlier – according to police records obtained by the Chicago Tribune.

In November of 2011, Chicago recorded 129 shootings compared to the 192 shootings this November.  Police records also reveal that shootings increased more than 11 percent in the first 11 months of 2012 compared with a year earlier.

Total homicides in Chicago rose to 480 for the first eleven months of 2012; a 21 percent increase from last year.  On November 30, 2012, there were four fatal shootings within the city.  These murders brought the homicide total to 38 for the month, just above the 37 recorded in November of last year.

Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans on restricting gun ownership further by banning individuals with a violent misdemeanor conviction from getting a gun permit for five years.  The mayor also hopes to ban convicted felons from ever owning a gun.

Emanuel’s intentions are no doubt well intentioned, but like many cities with strict gun laws, the disarming of law-abiding citizens doesn’t remove guns from the hands of those who wish to do harm.  On the contrary, it often leaves innocent victims vulnerable to criminals.

Despite the fact that gun laws are a proven failure, the American President again called for the possibility of more legislation just today in the wake of Sandy Hook. What’s more troubling is the media’s sudden attention to gun violence because of Sandy Hook, when more people than that are murdered in Chicago every month, and that’s despite Chicago’s strict gun laws. But don’t be fooled by the medias, or the regimes sudden  attention to gun violence either, because it is all agenda driven. The unfortunate murders of all middle class, white children became a very fortunate and convenient crisis for the regime and the liberal media to further their anti gun legislation. If you doubt me, then tell me why the monthly murder rate of inner city black children doesn’t register on their radar.

Despite liberals best intentions, “gun free zones” simply don’t work, and are literally an advertisement for those with mal intent. Amazona nailed it in the previous thread when she said:

“There is no greater control over others than to control whether they live or die, and no greater control over one’s own fate than to take his own life before it falls into the control of others.”

A responsible, well armed, God-fearing populace is the best deterrent than any government issued sign and well-intentioned legislation could ever be. We just need to hopefully get back to the point where we fear God, more than we fear guns.

 

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “The Gun Debate

  1. neocon01 December 18, 2012 / 6:51 pm

    Despite liberals best intentions, “gun free zones” simply don’t work, and are literally an advertisement for those with mal intent

    • neocon01 December 18, 2012 / 7:04 pm

      FACTS…….

      • neocon01 December 18, 2012 / 7:07 pm

        I think we should BAN THESE………..

        Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily

        Death toll in 2006 far overshadows total U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, Afghanistan

        Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/#TaCHclG9DKSYgUuI.99

  2. dbschmidt December 18, 2012 / 8:01 pm

    Stolen from Ace of Spades who noted it was originally written in 2007 by Marko Kloss, aka “The Munchkin Wrangler”,

    “Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it…”

    The Gun-Control argument is one that is absolutely loaded with emotional appeal on the gun-grabbers side, but very little hard data to support them. Arguing the dry and detached philosophies of Conservatism that promise payoffs over generations rather than next week’s dole check is a losing proposition in today’s society.

    Here is where I could state fact after fact and the Libbots and Progressives would not respond in like except with little tiny snot balls. I see no reason to put forth the effort.

  3. Cluster December 18, 2012 / 8:58 pm

    This is hilarious. Liberals just can’t understand why criminals don’t follow the laws. How can there be gun violence in areas where guns are restricted?

    There’s media bias – and then there’s just plain being unhinged.   MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts exhibited the latter in his interview this morning with Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) was egregious and irresponsible.  Roberts insisted that the United States has incredibly lax gun regulation while Kingston argued that mass shooting still happen in places where gun laws are stringent – namely in Europe.

  4. dougq December 19, 2012 / 4:10 am

    Did I understand this argument correctly?: the original post says the mayor wants to further restrict gun access by making it harder for convicted felons and convicted violent misdeanor criminals to get guns, and then opines that “Emanuel’s intentions are no doubt well intentioned, but like many cities with strict gun laws, the disarming of law-abiding citizens doesn’t remove guns from the hands of those who wish to do harm. On the contrary, it often leaves innocent victims vulnerable to criminals.”

    I think the italics means it is comming from another source, which I hope is true because it doesn’t make any sense.

    I would hope that ‘law-abiding citizens’ doesn’t mean convicted felons and convicted criminals.

    Assuming that the reporting is accurate, it seems to me that in this case the Dem. mayor is suggesting restricting gun ownership for the criminal and not restricting it for the non-criminal. Seems to me that of all the Dem. talking heads, that one is right as far as that is concerned.

    Now, in conjunction with trying to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, he should loosen restrictions on others and make sure that schools are filled with teachers who are trained to carry and are carrying weapons that can stop shooters with lower risk to bystanders.

    • Amazona December 19, 2012 / 7:11 am

      “Assuming that the reporting is accurate, it seems to me that in this case the Dem. mayor is suggesting restricting gun ownership for the criminal and not restricting it for the non-criminal.”

      Assuming that the reporting is accurate….

      Sure, out of one side of their mouths they talk only about “… restricting gun ownership for the criminal and not restricting it for the non-criminal….” But then, in just a sentence or two, or maybe the next day, they are talking about outlawing certain kinds of guns—-using a very flexible definition of what kinds of guns need to be outlawed. And in among all that are comments such as those about wanting to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, and Dear Leader chiming in with his opinion on the defects of the 2nd Amendment.

      I don’t know ANYONE who is in favor of allowing criminals and the mentally ill to have firearms. This is a straw man argument if it is made. But if this is a straw man, the Left’s pretense of only wanting to make it harder for criminals to get guns is a stalking horse. How is taxing the materials that go into making ammunition targeting only criminals? How is trying to make it illegal to reload ammunition targeting only criminals?

    • Cluster December 19, 2012 / 8:06 am

      Assuming that the reporting is accurate, it seems to me that in this case the Dem. mayor is suggesting restricting gun ownership for the criminal and not restricting it for the non-criminal. Seems to me that of all the Dem. talking heads, that one is right as far as that is concerned.

      Doug, the italics do mean that the source of the information was the article. But in reference to your comment above, you are assuming that criminals go through legal channels to purchase guns. You can put all the legal restrictions in place that you want to stop criminals from buying guns and it won’t do one thing. Criminals either steal guns, or buy guns on the black market. They don’t walk into gun stores to make their purchases.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) December 19, 2012 / 9:44 am

        They don’t walk into gun stores to make their purchases.

        And, contrary to the popular liberal myth, criminals also don’t purchase guns at gun shows.

        Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette says that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (“Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities,” a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

        That finding is consistent with a mid-1980s study for the NIJ, which investigated the gun purchase and use habits of convicted felons in 12 state prisons. The study (later published as the book Armed and Considered Dangerous) found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

      • Amazona December 20, 2012 / 9:17 am

        And I’ll bet they don’t buy several guns at a time, either, such as the nightmare scenario the Canadian non-observer frets about.

        Not unless it is cleared by ATF because the Prez has some sort of “plan” in the works……………

  5. Jeremiah December 20, 2012 / 1:07 am

    I would give some good advice…

    I couple of years ago, I helped a fellow up the hollow move in…his brother helped me quite a bit on my truck, doing body work on it. And his brother moved back down here from Ohio, and he brought with him a gun-safe. And it has to be the heaviest gun-safe that there is, I should know, because I pushed the thing in his house, it had to weigh about 400 pounds….I’d push a step or two, and stop, push step or two and stop. I had it on a dolly, and it was killing my arms….and it was everything my body could do to move the thing.

    This gun-safe has combination locks, door handle locks, and a place to put a padlock on it.
    I would suggest to all gun-owners, if you have people that are close to you, relatives, children, or friends who are known to be mentally unstable…I would suggest purchasing one of these safes…as its benefit is two-fold – One, you keep your guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, and two, if the house catches-o-fire then the guns won’t be harmed, as they are fire-proof safes.

    • neocon01 December 20, 2012 / 8:58 am

      had mine for several years , trigger locks on one handy to me with key close by yet hidden.

      • Jeremiah December 20, 2012 / 7:57 pm

        Those are nice, too. Some you have to take the bolt out…take ‘n’ put the cable down through the bolt hole, then lock it. I never was much on that kind, though…afraid of losing the key.

      • neocon01 December 21, 2012 / 4:29 pm

        jer

        nah way to much work, in case of an emergency, Locked, loaded, round chambered, magazine in………trigger lock that takes 1 second to remove and shoot away.
        yet safe around children or burglars if you are away and it is at home.

Comments are closed.