Fewer guns, more death
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35019
*******************************************************
Fewer guns, more death
Posted: October 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Gun-control enthusiasts in the United States and western
Europe have a lot to answer for on the heels of two reports
last week that prove, beyond a doubt, the barbaric lunacy of
ensuring citizens are defenseless against armed criminal
threats.
In the first, a British paper reported authorities have seen
a 35 percent increase in gun violence in 2002 – not so
ironically, in the sixth year since Parliament passed a law
banning personal ownership of most firearms.
So bad is the violence now that police say it has "spread
like a cancer" across the whole of the country, the Observer
reported. To put the level of violence in perspective, more
British subjects are dying from gun violence now than before
idiots in Parliament banned virtually all firearms.
"Handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the
Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on ownership of
handguns introduced the year after Thomas Hamilton, an
amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren,
their teacher and himself in the Perthshire town," the paper
reported.
"It was hoped the measure would reduce the number of
handguns available to criminals. Now handgun crime is at
its highest since 1993," said the Observer. "New laws that
make carrying a firearm an offence with a mandatory
five-year sentence have won little favor with officers on
the street. 'It changes nothing,' said one drug squad
detective who asked to remain anonymous."
Meanwhile, here in the States, a Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention study released last week found no conclusive
evidence gun-control laws curb violent crime, suicides by
firearms or firearms-related accidents.
The study found "inconclusive evidence" that gun-control
laws, which include entire bans of certain classes of
weapons, have any appreciable effect on gun-related
violence.
Interestingly enough, where gun control is the staunchest –
New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and other
major urban centers – Britain-like handgun and rifle bans,
some analyses contend, are doing little more than filling
morgues with innocent, unprotected, law-abiding citizens.
"The sale of assault rifles has been outlawed. However,
this has done little to reduce crime," says an analysis by
National Issues, a non-partisan research site on the
Internet.
What has helped reduce violent crime in our society?
Criminals' fear of dying, that's what.
For example, on the issue of concealed-carry laws in the
U.S. and their effect on crime, Jeffrey Snyder, a New York
attorney writing for the CATO Institute, a libertarian think
tank, said initially "many people feared [such laws] would
quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running
in the streets."
But, after more than a decade since Florida broke ranks in
1987 and passed one of the nation's first liberal
concealed-carry laws, "it is safe to say that those dire
predictions were completely unfounded."
"Indeed," Snyder writes, "the debate today over
concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such
laws can actually reduce the crime rate."
I recall throughout the 1990s, as more states were passing
concealed-carry laws, the FBI consistently reported
reductions in violent crime. The anti-gun Clinton
administration hailed this data as "proof" federal
gun-control laws such as background checks and
assault-weapons bans were working. Interestingly, not once
did the FBI gauge the effect of state-level concealed-carry
laws on violent crime. If the bureau studied the issue,
they didn't make their findings public, but maybe that's
because such information isn't politically useful to a
regime bent on banning guns.
Despite the truth about an armed populace's effect on
criminal activity, the "conventional wisdom" among our power
elite remains that we the people should be as disarmed and
as powerless as possible. It's almost as if our elected
leaders fear an armed populace almost as much as criminals
do.
But it's past time for Americans truly concerned about
public safety to reject this authoritarian viewpoint. Armed
criminals don't fear unarmed victims – all too often, the
crime statistics now overwhelmingly indicate, they kill them
instead.
Any elected representative who supports a continuation of
laws aimed at depriving Americans of their constitutional
right to a firearm for self-defense deserves to be arrested,
charged and convicted of murder. Their "fewer guns"
approach to crime is responsible for more deaths than if we
the people had been "allowed" the means to protect ourselves
all along.
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for
WorldNetDaily
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35019
*******************************************************
Fewer guns, more death
Posted: October 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Gun-control enthusiasts in the United States and western
Europe have a lot to answer for on the heels of two reports
last week that prove, beyond a doubt, the barbaric lunacy of
ensuring citizens are defenseless against armed criminal
threats.
In the first, a British paper reported authorities have seen
a 35 percent increase in gun violence in 2002 – not so
ironically, in the sixth year since Parliament passed a law
banning personal ownership of most firearms.
So bad is the violence now that police say it has "spread
like a cancer" across the whole of the country, the Observer
reported. To put the level of violence in perspective, more
British subjects are dying from gun violence now than before
idiots in Parliament banned virtually all firearms.
"Handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the
Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on ownership of
handguns introduced the year after Thomas Hamilton, an
amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren,
their teacher and himself in the Perthshire town," the paper
reported.
"It was hoped the measure would reduce the number of
handguns available to criminals. Now handgun crime is at
its highest since 1993," said the Observer. "New laws that
make carrying a firearm an offence with a mandatory
five-year sentence have won little favor with officers on
the street. 'It changes nothing,' said one drug squad
detective who asked to remain anonymous."
Meanwhile, here in the States, a Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention study released last week found no conclusive
evidence gun-control laws curb violent crime, suicides by
firearms or firearms-related accidents.
The study found "inconclusive evidence" that gun-control
laws, which include entire bans of certain classes of
weapons, have any appreciable effect on gun-related
violence.
Interestingly enough, where gun control is the staunchest –
New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and other
major urban centers – Britain-like handgun and rifle bans,
some analyses contend, are doing little more than filling
morgues with innocent, unprotected, law-abiding citizens.
"The sale of assault rifles has been outlawed. However,
this has done little to reduce crime," says an analysis by
National Issues, a non-partisan research site on the
Internet.
What has helped reduce violent crime in our society?
Criminals' fear of dying, that's what.
For example, on the issue of concealed-carry laws in the
U.S. and their effect on crime, Jeffrey Snyder, a New York
attorney writing for the CATO Institute, a libertarian think
tank, said initially "many people feared [such laws] would
quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running
in the streets."
But, after more than a decade since Florida broke ranks in
1987 and passed one of the nation's first liberal
concealed-carry laws, "it is safe to say that those dire
predictions were completely unfounded."
"Indeed," Snyder writes, "the debate today over
concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such
laws can actually reduce the crime rate."
I recall throughout the 1990s, as more states were passing
concealed-carry laws, the FBI consistently reported
reductions in violent crime. The anti-gun Clinton
administration hailed this data as "proof" federal
gun-control laws such as background checks and
assault-weapons bans were working. Interestingly, not once
did the FBI gauge the effect of state-level concealed-carry
laws on violent crime. If the bureau studied the issue,
they didn't make their findings public, but maybe that's
because such information isn't politically useful to a
regime bent on banning guns.
Despite the truth about an armed populace's effect on
criminal activity, the "conventional wisdom" among our power
elite remains that we the people should be as disarmed and
as powerless as possible. It's almost as if our elected
leaders fear an armed populace almost as much as criminals
do.
But it's past time for Americans truly concerned about
public safety to reject this authoritarian viewpoint. Armed
criminals don't fear unarmed victims – all too often, the
crime statistics now overwhelmingly indicate, they kill them
instead.
Any elected representative who supports a continuation of
laws aimed at depriving Americans of their constitutional
right to a firearm for self-defense deserves to be arrested,
charged and convicted of murder. Their "fewer guns"
approach to crime is responsible for more deaths than if we
the people had been "allowed" the means to protect ourselves
all along.
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for
WorldNetDaily
