2nd_Amendment
03-09-2001, 04:36 PM
magnum mom
Forum Host
posts: 46
(2/17/01 2:02:10 am)
Reply Gun bans bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun bans bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
It probably took the brainiacs at the Violence Policy Center all of five minutes last Wednesday to proclaim that because some idiot from Indiana took a couple of pot shots near the White House, the incident was "the latest proof of the need for a handgun ban."
In a press release last week, the VPC "experts" said the alleged shooting by 47-year-old Robert Pickett "is the latest incident starkly illustrating the need for a ban on the most deadly categories of firearms -- small, easily concealable handguns and high-powered assault weapons."
I don't know of many "high-powered 'assault weapons'" that are easily concealed nor what that has to do with "Pickett's White House charge," but no matter; the VPC blathered on.
"The single bloody thread that runs through [recent shooting] incidents is the easy accessibility we allow our citizens to the most lethal categories of weapons, such as handguns," bleated Josh Sugarmann, VPC's executive director. "After these shootings a predictable pattern emerges, we quickly look for a loophole to be plugged, a limited law that could be better enforced, or other 'common sense' solutions, while never stepping back to look at the big picture: the free flow of guns in our nation.
"America's gun violence problem will not be solved by licensing and registration, trigger locks, or lamentations over the evil in men's hearts," Sugarmann lectured. "It will be solved only when we look at the tools that make such violence possible. To paraphrase: It's the guns, stupid."
To re-paraphrase Mr. Sugarmann: No, stupid, it's not the guns because guns don't think and act independently. I'm wondering if the same can be said for VPC officials.
I suppose it would be fruitless to remind Sugarmann that Washington, D.C., already has a complete handgun ban. And I suppose it would be pointless to remind him that our nation's capitol, despite this ban, is still near the top of the list of America's most murderous cities.
Further, I guess it would be just a big waste of time to remind the VPC that guaranteeing criminals and lunatics they will face no opposition in the commission of their armed and murderous acts on the streets of our fair cities is a failed and ignorant policy -- as the latest high-profile D.C. shooting proves.
Here's another thing that bugs me: Why are all these "anti-violence" groups nothing but leftist havens for gun haters decrying only gun violence?
Federal statistics show that guns cause the least amount of violence in this country (most rapes and assaults -- the dominant "violence" -- are committed by unarmed perps). They also show that that more kids and adults die each year from falls in the home than from gunfire.
Violence is violence, isn't it? So why does the VPC -- and just about every other "anti-violence" organization in existence -- only rail against violence caused by guns?
I've said it before: Liberal gun control hacks have sentenced more people to death than all the nation's courts throughout history combined; leftist gun-control policies have killed more Americans than most of our wars put together. Why? Because these laws serve to put more people at risk, not to protect them.
And still, they cry for more guarantees that helpless citizens will be disarmed and easy prey for shooters. What in hell are these people smoking?
I was recently watching a movie -- a comedy -- that featured one scene which best proves my point.
A street tough who was avoiding police ran onto a bus and, within seconds, grabbed a seated woman and stuck a gun to her neck. In a nanosecond, the camera shifted to show a bus crowded with people who all -- at the same time -- produced their own handguns and pointed them at the thug.
The expression on the tough's face immediately changed from one of arrogant defiance to one that resembles the look you get when you top a hill driving 65, only to find a deer standing in the middle of the road 15 feet in front of you.
Needless to say, the guy calmly released the woman, put his own weapon away and slowly backed out of the bus.
Sure, that's funny, but why? Because everybody can envision a criminal doing exactly that in exactly the same situation.
Here's another anti-violence statistic that Sugarmann and Co. refuse to acknowledge publicly, much less discuss.
A former Texas state trooper who was assigned to help fill out the FBI's monthly Uniform Crime Report e-mailed me last week and said beginning in 1997, the bureau "first asked a highly relevant question: How many times in your jurisdiction was a weapon displayed or the threat of a weapon displayed that stopped a crime in progress?"
The ex-trooper said, according to FBI figures, in 1997, 1.2 million persons reported (that's key because not all persons "report" such incidents) protecting themselves simply by brandishing or displaying a weapon; in 1998 the figure rose to 1.5 million; in 1999, 2 million.
"If a weapon was displayed in over 1 million incidents that stopped a crime in progress, sounds like it is quite effective, if only 17,000 people were killed by handguns (homicide only)," the trooper said. "That means for every person killed by a homicidal action with a handgun, 59 people were saved by the mere threat of defense by a handgun. If you take the higher figure of 2 million, that would mean 118 people would live for every one that dies by handgun homicide.
"Works for me," he concluded.
Ditto for me. As the former trooper indicated, any homicide under any circumstances and from any cause is not a good thing, but it's time to get realistic in our public policy approach to creating a society that is as safe as it can be.
For 30-plus years lawmakers and liberal policy wonks have said, "Oh, gee. If we just had fewer guns, life would be safer." Well, the figures don't bear that out.
This isn't rocket science. It should be obvious: lawmakers need to repeal laws prohibiting Americans from practicing their God-given and constitutional right to self defense, not pass more of them.
I have no idea what would have happened to Mr. Pickett last week if he had pulled a handgun out in front of the White House in a Washington, D.C., devoid of anti-safety, death-inducing gun control laws and pistol bans. But using the bus example and the FBI figures as a guide, I have a pretty good idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
WorldNetDaily: Gun bans bomb
www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=21692 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=21692)
AtomicLibSmasher
ezOP/TaskMaster
posts: 1108
(2/17/01 8:30:45 am)
Reply
Re: Gun bans bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy I'm sure glad we have colleges to make sure our boyz n guirlz continue to be enlightened as to how precisely to IGNORE reality and embrace the lie.
Excellent post mom!!!!
``I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal" - Slick Clinton
Maggie T
Forum Host
posts: 306
(2/17/01 11:06:27 am)
Reply
Re: Gun bans bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mom, I think it's just the typical liberal modus operandi. Repeat something at nauseaum and it will stick. By the way, don't back up your repetition with any rational explanation (such as: guns don't kill, people do), that might actually light a candle in the sheeple's brain. Just repeat, repeat, repeat you slogan du jour.
They did the same during impeachment (it's only sex) and the sheeple bought it.
Remember they aim at (pun intended) feelings, not facts.
Forum Host
posts: 46
(2/17/01 2:02:10 am)
Reply Gun bans bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun bans bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
It probably took the brainiacs at the Violence Policy Center all of five minutes last Wednesday to proclaim that because some idiot from Indiana took a couple of pot shots near the White House, the incident was "the latest proof of the need for a handgun ban."
In a press release last week, the VPC "experts" said the alleged shooting by 47-year-old Robert Pickett "is the latest incident starkly illustrating the need for a ban on the most deadly categories of firearms -- small, easily concealable handguns and high-powered assault weapons."
I don't know of many "high-powered 'assault weapons'" that are easily concealed nor what that has to do with "Pickett's White House charge," but no matter; the VPC blathered on.
"The single bloody thread that runs through [recent shooting] incidents is the easy accessibility we allow our citizens to the most lethal categories of weapons, such as handguns," bleated Josh Sugarmann, VPC's executive director. "After these shootings a predictable pattern emerges, we quickly look for a loophole to be plugged, a limited law that could be better enforced, or other 'common sense' solutions, while never stepping back to look at the big picture: the free flow of guns in our nation.
"America's gun violence problem will not be solved by licensing and registration, trigger locks, or lamentations over the evil in men's hearts," Sugarmann lectured. "It will be solved only when we look at the tools that make such violence possible. To paraphrase: It's the guns, stupid."
To re-paraphrase Mr. Sugarmann: No, stupid, it's not the guns because guns don't think and act independently. I'm wondering if the same can be said for VPC officials.
I suppose it would be fruitless to remind Sugarmann that Washington, D.C., already has a complete handgun ban. And I suppose it would be pointless to remind him that our nation's capitol, despite this ban, is still near the top of the list of America's most murderous cities.
Further, I guess it would be just a big waste of time to remind the VPC that guaranteeing criminals and lunatics they will face no opposition in the commission of their armed and murderous acts on the streets of our fair cities is a failed and ignorant policy -- as the latest high-profile D.C. shooting proves.
Here's another thing that bugs me: Why are all these "anti-violence" groups nothing but leftist havens for gun haters decrying only gun violence?
Federal statistics show that guns cause the least amount of violence in this country (most rapes and assaults -- the dominant "violence" -- are committed by unarmed perps). They also show that that more kids and adults die each year from falls in the home than from gunfire.
Violence is violence, isn't it? So why does the VPC -- and just about every other "anti-violence" organization in existence -- only rail against violence caused by guns?
I've said it before: Liberal gun control hacks have sentenced more people to death than all the nation's courts throughout history combined; leftist gun-control policies have killed more Americans than most of our wars put together. Why? Because these laws serve to put more people at risk, not to protect them.
And still, they cry for more guarantees that helpless citizens will be disarmed and easy prey for shooters. What in hell are these people smoking?
I was recently watching a movie -- a comedy -- that featured one scene which best proves my point.
A street tough who was avoiding police ran onto a bus and, within seconds, grabbed a seated woman and stuck a gun to her neck. In a nanosecond, the camera shifted to show a bus crowded with people who all -- at the same time -- produced their own handguns and pointed them at the thug.
The expression on the tough's face immediately changed from one of arrogant defiance to one that resembles the look you get when you top a hill driving 65, only to find a deer standing in the middle of the road 15 feet in front of you.
Needless to say, the guy calmly released the woman, put his own weapon away and slowly backed out of the bus.
Sure, that's funny, but why? Because everybody can envision a criminal doing exactly that in exactly the same situation.
Here's another anti-violence statistic that Sugarmann and Co. refuse to acknowledge publicly, much less discuss.
A former Texas state trooper who was assigned to help fill out the FBI's monthly Uniform Crime Report e-mailed me last week and said beginning in 1997, the bureau "first asked a highly relevant question: How many times in your jurisdiction was a weapon displayed or the threat of a weapon displayed that stopped a crime in progress?"
The ex-trooper said, according to FBI figures, in 1997, 1.2 million persons reported (that's key because not all persons "report" such incidents) protecting themselves simply by brandishing or displaying a weapon; in 1998 the figure rose to 1.5 million; in 1999, 2 million.
"If a weapon was displayed in over 1 million incidents that stopped a crime in progress, sounds like it is quite effective, if only 17,000 people were killed by handguns (homicide only)," the trooper said. "That means for every person killed by a homicidal action with a handgun, 59 people were saved by the mere threat of defense by a handgun. If you take the higher figure of 2 million, that would mean 118 people would live for every one that dies by handgun homicide.
"Works for me," he concluded.
Ditto for me. As the former trooper indicated, any homicide under any circumstances and from any cause is not a good thing, but it's time to get realistic in our public policy approach to creating a society that is as safe as it can be.
For 30-plus years lawmakers and liberal policy wonks have said, "Oh, gee. If we just had fewer guns, life would be safer." Well, the figures don't bear that out.
This isn't rocket science. It should be obvious: lawmakers need to repeal laws prohibiting Americans from practicing their God-given and constitutional right to self defense, not pass more of them.
I have no idea what would have happened to Mr. Pickett last week if he had pulled a handgun out in front of the White House in a Washington, D.C., devoid of anti-safety, death-inducing gun control laws and pistol bans. But using the bus example and the FBI figures as a guide, I have a pretty good idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
WorldNetDaily: Gun bans bomb
www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=21692 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=21692)
AtomicLibSmasher
ezOP/TaskMaster
posts: 1108
(2/17/01 8:30:45 am)
Reply
Re: Gun bans bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy I'm sure glad we have colleges to make sure our boyz n guirlz continue to be enlightened as to how precisely to IGNORE reality and embrace the lie.
Excellent post mom!!!!
``I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal" - Slick Clinton
Maggie T
Forum Host
posts: 306
(2/17/01 11:06:27 am)
Reply
Re: Gun bans bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mom, I think it's just the typical liberal modus operandi. Repeat something at nauseaum and it will stick. By the way, don't back up your repetition with any rational explanation (such as: guns don't kill, people do), that might actually light a candle in the sheeple's brain. Just repeat, repeat, repeat you slogan du jour.
They did the same during impeachment (it's only sex) and the sheeple bought it.
Remember they aim at (pun intended) feelings, not facts.