Monday, December 29, 2008
Media Hypocrisy: Caroline Kennedy vs. Sarah Palin
Anyone who still denies a liberal bias in mainstream media is either delusional or simply dishonest. An article by Victor Davis Hanson compares the media's coverage of Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
A Compendium of Liberal Gun Control Beliefs
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
That the best thing our kids can do to bullies and drug dealers is "just say no," and fight back, and the best thing we can do to bullies and drug dealers is to give them $50 and wait for them to go away.
That it's outrageous that the Milwaukee police took 45 minutes to respond to reports of Jeffrey Dahmer's last victim running around naked in the cold, then returned him to his attacker without checking ID, but the best thing a citizen can do in an emergency is dial 911.
That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.
That the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.
That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum two-year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a six-month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
That the First Amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't apply to manuals on gun repair.
That a woman in a microskirt, perfume and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, "asking for it." And you won't allow either of them to carry a gun.
That Illinois law that allows almost any government official from governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, but the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million-dollar jewelry business from carrying a gun, is reasonable and isn't a sign of statism.
That the 80 religious kooks in Waco were a threat to American security, but snipers killing them as they left the building, machinegunning children, hiding the video evidence, torching the building on purpose, and having no case to present in federal court is good law enforcement.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.
That with the above, a 90-pound woman attacked by a 300-pound rapist and his 300-pound buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.
That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiti ng periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950s and 1960s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, or by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.
That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.
That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, but 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, but statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth
Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, but so simple to use that they make murder easy.
That the best thing our kids can do to bullies and drug dealers is "just say no," and fight back, and the best thing we can do to bullies and drug dealers is to give them $50 and wait for them to go away.
That it's outrageous that the Milwaukee police took 45 minutes to respond to reports of Jeffrey Dahmer's last victim running around naked in the cold, then returned him to his attacker without checking ID, but the best thing a citizen can do in an emergency is dial 911.
That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.
That the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.
That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum two-year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a six-month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
That the First Amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't apply to manuals on gun repair.
That a woman in a microskirt, perfume and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, "asking for it." And you won't allow either of them to carry a gun.
That Illinois law that allows almost any government official from governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, but the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million-dollar jewelry business from carrying a gun, is reasonable and isn't a sign of statism.
That the 80 religious kooks in Waco were a threat to American security, but snipers killing them as they left the building, machinegunning children, hiding the video evidence, torching the building on purpose, and having no case to present in federal court is good law enforcement.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.
That with the above, a 90-pound woman attacked by a 300-pound rapist and his 300-pound buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.
That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiti ng periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950s and 1960s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, or by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.
That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.
That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, but 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, but statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth
Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, but so simple to use that they make murder easy.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Why Do Celebrities Say Such Stupid Things?
Actress Kate Winslet is the latest celebrity to utter something incredibly stupid. In an interview concerning her latest movie, “Revolutionary Road,” she was asked if she had any trepidations about a scene involving statutory rape in which her character, a 36-year-old woman, has sex with a 15-year-old boy.
The winsome actress angrily retorted, “I’m so sorry, ‘statutory rape’? I’ve got to tell you, I’m so offended by that. No, I really am. I genuinely am. To me, that is absolutely not this story at all. That boy knows exactly what he's doing.”
Ignoring the fact that a child cannot give consent, I wonder if she feels the same way about a 36-year-old man who seduces a 15-year-old girl?
Another recent member of the “Celebrities Saying Stupid Things” club is “The View” hostess and actress Whoopi Goldberg. The comedienne, famous for both her comedic acting ability and foul mouth, asked Republican presidential candidate John McCain, “Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?”
Putting aside the fact that Goldberg was never a slave to begin with, she was apparently innocent of knowledge concerning the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, or the Civil War with 600,000 fatalities. She was also unaware that Sen. McCain spent spent six years in an Asian hellhole to help ensure that she would never be a slave. Goldberg neglected to thank the senator for his efforts on her behalf.
No list of “Celebrities Saying Stupid Things” would be complete without mention of the redoubtable Rosie O’Donnell. O’Donnell, whose peculiar habit of hanging upside down for her health gives new meaning to the term “Moonbat,” joined the ranks of tinfoil hat 9/11 conspiracy theorists by claiming the World Trade Center buildings had to have been an inside job.
“I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel,” she said, much to the surprise of blacksmiths and steelworkers everywhere who have been melting steel in fire for centuries. She was also unaware that steel starts to lose its structural strength at only 400 degrees. I can only surmise that she studied metallurgy at an obedience school since her knowledge of the field is on the same level as my dog’s.
These are just a few of the more recent outrageously stupid statements by celebrities.
There will be more.
The winsome actress angrily retorted, “I’m so sorry, ‘statutory rape’? I’ve got to tell you, I’m so offended by that. No, I really am. I genuinely am. To me, that is absolutely not this story at all. That boy knows exactly what he's doing.”
Ignoring the fact that a child cannot give consent, I wonder if she feels the same way about a 36-year-old man who seduces a 15-year-old girl?
Another recent member of the “Celebrities Saying Stupid Things” club is “The View” hostess and actress Whoopi Goldberg. The comedienne, famous for both her comedic acting ability and foul mouth, asked Republican presidential candidate John McCain, “Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?”
Putting aside the fact that Goldberg was never a slave to begin with, she was apparently innocent of knowledge concerning the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, or the Civil War with 600,000 fatalities. She was also unaware that Sen. McCain spent spent six years in an Asian hellhole to help ensure that she would never be a slave. Goldberg neglected to thank the senator for his efforts on her behalf.
No list of “Celebrities Saying Stupid Things” would be complete without mention of the redoubtable Rosie O’Donnell. O’Donnell, whose peculiar habit of hanging upside down for her health gives new meaning to the term “Moonbat,” joined the ranks of tinfoil hat 9/11 conspiracy theorists by claiming the World Trade Center buildings had to have been an inside job.
“I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel,” she said, much to the surprise of blacksmiths and steelworkers everywhere who have been melting steel in fire for centuries. She was also unaware that steel starts to lose its structural strength at only 400 degrees. I can only surmise that she studied metallurgy at an obedience school since her knowledge of the field is on the same level as my dog’s.
These are just a few of the more recent outrageously stupid statements by celebrities.
There will be more.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
‘None of your business!’ — Princess Caroline
Caroline Kennedy wants to have control over Americans’ lives, but seems a bit reluctant to have those same Americans look too closely at her.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Senator Caroline Kennedy?
An anti-cleric acquaintance of mine was recently railing against the Catholic clergy giving advice to families. After all, he maintained, priests cannot marry and are supposed to be celibate, so how can they possibly understand the problems of a husband and wife or of parents?
I had a similar reaction upon learning that Caroline Kennedy wants New York Gov. David Paterson to name her to the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton.
How can this woman possibly understand her constituents?
It is a gross understatement to say she was born with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth. She is a product of the most exclusive private schools, including the Brearley School in New York and the Concord Academy in Massachusetts, as well as Harvard and Columbia University.
Despite the exclusive nature of her educational background, the Kennedy scion claims to be something of an expert in the field of public education. She has worked to gain private funding for public schools, but so does the PTA.
In fact, not a lot is known about the notoriously publicity-shy Kennedy. She refuses to answer questions from the media as softball as they are from the MSM. What is known from public record is this would-be politician has been lackadaisical about voting, even in Democratic primaries, since registering to vote in New York in 1988.
Despite this, the media have been relatively silent, as opposed to their scrutiny of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a woman of humble beginnings who worked to build a business, PTA, city and state.
Arguably, a senator’s obligations are much more complex than that of vice president. So where are the pontificators about Kennedy’s total absence of qualification to be a United States Senator?
Quoting Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), “I don't know what Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J-Lo.”
J-Lo may even be better qualified.
I had a similar reaction upon learning that Caroline Kennedy wants New York Gov. David Paterson to name her to the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton.
How can this woman possibly understand her constituents?
It is a gross understatement to say she was born with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth. She is a product of the most exclusive private schools, including the Brearley School in New York and the Concord Academy in Massachusetts, as well as Harvard and Columbia University.
Despite the exclusive nature of her educational background, the Kennedy scion claims to be something of an expert in the field of public education. She has worked to gain private funding for public schools, but so does the PTA.
In fact, not a lot is known about the notoriously publicity-shy Kennedy. She refuses to answer questions from the media as softball as they are from the MSM. What is known from public record is this would-be politician has been lackadaisical about voting, even in Democratic primaries, since registering to vote in New York in 1988.
Despite this, the media have been relatively silent, as opposed to their scrutiny of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a woman of humble beginnings who worked to build a business, PTA, city and state.
Arguably, a senator’s obligations are much more complex than that of vice president. So where are the pontificators about Kennedy’s total absence of qualification to be a United States Senator?
Quoting Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), “I don't know what Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J-Lo.”
J-Lo may even be better qualified.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
We Are Proud Of You
Fellow blogger (and lifelong friend) MontereyJohn's nephew is spending this holiday season with the 10th Mountain Division in Iraq, keeping us safe.
John posted this tribute to his nephew on his site. It's worth the visit (and bring tissue to dry your eyes).
John posted this tribute to his nephew on his site. It's worth the visit (and bring tissue to dry your eyes).
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
What Progressive Sense of Humor?
Progressives have no problem making fun of their enemies, but like schoolyard bullies, they are the first to complain when they are the target.
The latest incident involved a Saturday Night Live skit poking fun at New York Gov. David Paterson who is blind.
Paterson himself denounced it as a “third-grade depiction of people and the way they look.”
I don't recall the governor denouncing the SNL depiction of Gov. Sarah Palin (which I, a Palin supporter, personally thought was hilarious).
This is the second time recently that Saturday Night Live has fallen afoul of progressive fascists.
Back in October, SNL came under severe fire from the left for a skit they did on the federal bail-out package that satirized such progressive icons as George Soros, Herbert and Marion Sandler, Rep. Barney Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The skit was yanked from YouTube and a sanitized version later posted.
It seems the same thing is happening now with the Paterson skit, which has been removed from the site with the explanation, “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NBC Universal.”
Both Marxists and their National Socialist cousins believe that all art must serve a political purpose. Their inheritors in the American progressive movement seem to have taken that doctrine to heart.
The latest incident involved a Saturday Night Live skit poking fun at New York Gov. David Paterson who is blind.
Paterson himself denounced it as a “third-grade depiction of people and the way they look.”
I don't recall the governor denouncing the SNL depiction of Gov. Sarah Palin (which I, a Palin supporter, personally thought was hilarious).
This is the second time recently that Saturday Night Live has fallen afoul of progressive fascists.
Back in October, SNL came under severe fire from the left for a skit they did on the federal bail-out package that satirized such progressive icons as George Soros, Herbert and Marion Sandler, Rep. Barney Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The skit was yanked from YouTube and a sanitized version later posted.
It seems the same thing is happening now with the Paterson skit, which has been removed from the site with the explanation, “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NBC Universal.”
Both Marxists and their National Socialist cousins believe that all art must serve a political purpose. Their inheritors in the American progressive movement seem to have taken that doctrine to heart.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
All Men Shall Be Brothers (Ode to Joy)
Not everything is about politics. Sometimes it's about beauty.
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Republican Party Needs to Stop Listening to Colin Powell
Former Secretary of State and putative Republican Colin Powell told CNN that the party must stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. He couldn‘t be more wrong.
The party unfortunately listened to voices urging a centrist move and responded with the nomination of Sen. John McCain. The good senator based his campaign from the middle, supporting public financing of elections, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a whole host of other programs enthusiastically endorsed by the left.
We got our collective rear end handed to us and rightly so because we forgot who we are. Rush reminds us of what conservatism means.
If we want to remain politically relevant, we need to remember who we are and what we stand for. Stop listening to Colin and listen more to Rush, Sean and Laura.
The party unfortunately listened to voices urging a centrist move and responded with the nomination of Sen. John McCain. The good senator based his campaign from the middle, supporting public financing of elections, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a whole host of other programs enthusiastically endorsed by the left.
We got our collective rear end handed to us and rightly so because we forgot who we are. Rush reminds us of what conservatism means.
If we want to remain politically relevant, we need to remember who we are and what we stand for. Stop listening to Colin and listen more to Rush, Sean and Laura.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Day Without A Gay — YAWN!
Back in the ’60s, one of the more popular, if inane, slogans was, “What if they gave a war and no one came?” That's exactly what happened at yesterday’s “Day Without A Gay” protest.
The gay community, in a hissy fit following the passage of Proposition 8 in California, tried to flex its collective economic muscle by “calling in gay” and not patronizing “straight” establishments.
It fizzled. Instead of looking like Popeye, the gay community bore a closer resemblance to Wimpy.
They should stick to doing what they do best — like roughing up elderly women or silencing talk show hosts they don't like.
The gay community, in a hissy fit following the passage of Proposition 8 in California, tried to flex its collective economic muscle by “calling in gay” and not patronizing “straight” establishments.
It fizzled. Instead of looking like Popeye, the gay community bore a closer resemblance to Wimpy.
They should stick to doing what they do best — like roughing up elderly women or silencing talk show hosts they don't like.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
UN: Man-Made Global Warming 'Proved Beyond A Doubt'
A United Nations conference currently underway in Poland states it is “proved beyond a doubt” that global warming is man made. However, more than 650 scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, say that’s not the case.
It seems the UN is borrowing the schoolyard technique adopted by Democrats and progressives to kill open debate by simply declaring that they won and walk away.
However, this is far from over.
It seems the UN is borrowing the schoolyard technique adopted by Democrats and progressives to kill open debate by simply declaring that they won and walk away.
However, this is far from over.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Gun Safety and Natural Selection
I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I'm also a believer in Natural Selection. Here's one reason why.
Answered Prayer
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, while preaching in his church, prayed "God damn America."
His prayer seems to have been answered with the election of Barack Obama.
His prayer seems to have been answered with the election of Barack Obama.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Gun Ownership Fights Crime
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Heller case, I read letter to the editor in my local newspaper condemning the decision as “Welcome to the Wild West,” and predicting increased firearms violence.
I responded online applauding the court’s ruling. I wrote that the crime rate dramatically increased in the United Kingdom and Australia after those countries outlawed most firearms. I also claimed that the crime rate in the District of Columbia also increased following its draconian (and unconstitutional) gun ban.
Other readers responded to me, demanding that I prove my assertions without quoting the National Rifle Association.
Fair enough. I would take anything from the Brady Campaign with more than a few grains of salt.
First, let’s look at crime rates in the U.K. and the impact of the gun ban in that country. Just look at this report from, the Times of London, Aug. 26, 2007.
“The Home Office figures — which exclude crimes involving air weapons — show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06.”
Australia’s experience with gun control is similar to the U.K.’s.
“The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.” Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
“Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75.” — “Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls,” Illawarra Mercury, Oct. 28, 1998.
“Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%.” — “Gun crime soars,” Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
“Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started.” — “Killings rise in gun hunt,” Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
“Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever.” — Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
“The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago.“ — South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
After the ban, D.C.’s murder rate only once fell below what it was in 1976. From 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.’s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976. After the ban, DC’s murder and violent rates rose relative to Maryland and Virginia as well as relative to other cities with more than 500,000 people, according to a Federal Emergency Management Agency report.
One writer expressed fears of “mass murders by disgruntled employees or school outcasts.” Data show that he has more to fear in states that do not have nondiscretionary concealed carry laws. Ten states passed nondiscretionary concealed carry laws between 1977-92 (California is not one of the states). Not only did gun violence decrease in those states, but mass public shootings in those states were eliminated five years later.
In fact, mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens in such places as the Appalachian School of Law in Kentucky in 2006; a high school in Boulder, Colorado in 1997; and most recently in Winnemucca, Nevada, in May 2008.
Contrast this with mass shootings in “gun free zones” such as Virginia Tech or the Long Island Railroad where helpless victims were slaughtered because they were unable to protect themselves.
One reader asks, “When will the madness end?”
The madness ends when people who would commit these crimes know that their intended victims will defend themselves.
I responded online applauding the court’s ruling. I wrote that the crime rate dramatically increased in the United Kingdom and Australia after those countries outlawed most firearms. I also claimed that the crime rate in the District of Columbia also increased following its draconian (and unconstitutional) gun ban.
Other readers responded to me, demanding that I prove my assertions without quoting the National Rifle Association.
Fair enough. I would take anything from the Brady Campaign with more than a few grains of salt.
First, let’s look at crime rates in the U.K. and the impact of the gun ban in that country. Just look at this report from, the Times of London, Aug. 26, 2007.
“The Home Office figures — which exclude crimes involving air weapons — show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06.”
Australia’s experience with gun control is similar to the U.K.’s.
“The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.” Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
“Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75.” — “Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls,” Illawarra Mercury, Oct. 28, 1998.
“Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%.” — “Gun crime soars,” Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
“Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started.” — “Killings rise in gun hunt,” Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
“Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever.” — Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
“The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago.“ — South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
After the ban, D.C.’s murder rate only once fell below what it was in 1976. From 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.’s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976. After the ban, DC’s murder and violent rates rose relative to Maryland and Virginia as well as relative to other cities with more than 500,000 people, according to a Federal Emergency Management Agency report.
One writer expressed fears of “mass murders by disgruntled employees or school outcasts.” Data show that he has more to fear in states that do not have nondiscretionary concealed carry laws. Ten states passed nondiscretionary concealed carry laws between 1977-92 (California is not one of the states). Not only did gun violence decrease in those states, but mass public shootings in those states were eliminated five years later.
In fact, mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens in such places as the Appalachian School of Law in Kentucky in 2006; a high school in Boulder, Colorado in 1997; and most recently in Winnemucca, Nevada, in May 2008.
Contrast this with mass shootings in “gun free zones” such as Virginia Tech or the Long Island Railroad where helpless victims were slaughtered because they were unable to protect themselves.
One reader asks, “When will the madness end?”
The madness ends when people who would commit these crimes know that their intended victims will defend themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
