 Click the Pistol to View the *Bang_List To View All FR Bump Lists Click Here |
Posted on 03/22/2004 11:51:36 AM PST by kimber
I was struck by a statement in a recent New York Times article about New York City mayor Bloomberg's drive for more gun control. The article was about changing a law to reduce the threshold of the number of guns sold illegally by a gun seller so they can be charged with a higher level felony crime.
The statement that caught my eye was: "Mr. Bloomberg said yesterday that the detectives lost their lives because they were forced to repeat purchases of guns to increase the possible penalty for illegal sellers".
Two detectives lost their lives in a sting operation purely for the purpose of attempting to increase the number of illegal gun sales by the alleged gun traffickers so they could obtain a higher felony conviction, and therefore, a longer time in jail.
It's a shame and saddening that two, no doubt, fine law enforcement officers lost their lives. But, one must ask the questions as to why these two men lost their lives? What was the expected results of putting these people in jail? Reduced murders? Reduced crime rates? Less guns on the street?
It seems odd that two law enforcement officers are dead as a result of attempting to regulate a perfectly legal product. What's the point of all this effort to catch people selling guns to one another? It certainly isn't to reduce crime. Is it? In this particular case, two law enforcement officers were murdered that would otherwise be alive today if they weren't engaged in attempting to regulate a perfectly legal product.
But, Bloomberg figures if a little regulation reduces crime, it would stand to reason that more regulations would reduce crime even more? The logic of such thinking has yet to be proven in any city or state in the U.S.
If more gun laws reduce crime, Washington, D.C. would then be the perfect example of paradise on earth. In 1978, D.C. banned the sale, and for the most part, the ownership of all handguns. Rifles could be kept in the home, but only if they were disassembled and made inoperative. When the ban went into effect, D.C. had, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics, the highest rate of murders per capita in the country. D.C. by far outstripped every other major city in the country, and not by a little bit. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all had homicide rates far and above the national average. But, Washington D.C. stood alone even exceeding that of New York City by a very large margin.
But, a strange and completely unexpected trend, at least by those who advocate strict gun control, developed. Instead of homicide rates dropping, they rose, and not by a statistically insignificant amount. In 1978, D.C.'s murder rate stood at exactly 28 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. Simply meaning, for every 100,000 residents of Washington D.C., 28 were murdered. In 1978, the rate of murder nationally stood at 9 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. The homicide rate in D.C. was over three times higher. In other words, a resident of D.C. was over three times more likely to be murdered in Washington D.C. than the average American in the United States. By 1991, a very short 13 years later, Washington D.C.'s homicides had risen to an astonishing rate of 80.6 murders per 100,000 residents while the national level stood at 9.8 per 100,000.
Gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc) and the Violence Policy Center have been strangely silent on Washington D.C.'s gun ban results. After all, it is the model of what they want for the rest of the country. Isn't it?
More recent gun bans prove similar statistical results. In the United Kingdom, a handgun and rifle ban in 1998 has resulted in a 46% increase in gun crimes and a huge increase in gun related shootings and murders. Unfortunately in London today, the average person is statistically more likely to be a victim of violent crime than in most every city in the U.S. with the exception of Washington D.C. At no time in UK's history have they ever had such a high level of gun crimes.
There is not one report, one study, or one analysis that anyone can point to in the United States, Canada, Mexico or Europe that even remotely suggests, no matter how you jog the numbers, that gun control reduces violent crime. On the other hand, one must be completely blind and deaf to not see the data that clearly shows when strict gun control is implemented, crime rises. It doesn't require an in-depth study at the university level to see that.
In the U.S. we certainly didn't seem to have a problem of gun crimes, gun trafficking rings and illegal gun sales until the Gun Control Act of 1968 was implemented by Congress. What's a gun-trafficker? Gun rings? Those were foreign words prior to 1968. Subsequent laws, at the federal, state, and even down to the city level, have created a labyrinth of gun laws all waiting to be exploited by those criminals who find a willing marketplace of customers. Historically, anytime something that is readily available in the marketplace which is not controlled or regulated and subsequently becomes illegal, a vacuum is created and must be filled. In essence, citizens find controls and regulations for what was formerly legal products to be an infringement and they find ways to circumvent those restrictions, even risking prosecution and jail time. And, despite what some might think as illogical, the desire to obtain illegal items continues through subsequent generations of citizens. The idea of training a generation so the next generation will not desire the now illegal items doesn't work either. Just look at the illegal drug market as an example.
The ban of alcohol sales early in the first half of the past century, by constitutional amendment, is a classic example of a legal item, now suddenly illegal. It was so blatantly ignored by such a vast majority of citizens, it proved to be completely unenforceable. It was ultimately reversed within a few short years out of complete frustration by law enforcement, the federal government, and citizens who initially thought it was a worthy idea. All supported a quick amendment to get rid of it, and fast.
It's becoming quite clear that huge amounts of time and money are being spent under the guise that if guns are left uncontrolled or unregulated, it would mean absolute chaos to Americans. There was no chaos prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act. In fact, firearm sales were, for the most part, totally and completely unregulated. Gun crimes were so low most Americans would give their first male born child if it meant returning to the crime rates of the sixties. It was so unregulated, firearms could be purchased from mail order catalogs. The ban on alcohol is a perfect historical example of creating chaos where none existed previously. Law enforcement spent excruciatingly large amounts of time and effort to enforce a federal law that by any measure did not stop the illegal production and flow of alcohol to just about anyone who wanted it. Law enforcement had no effect on alcohol consumption in this country. The only thing they accomplished was to make a new class of criminals where none existed previously. The criminals were those who produced and trafficked in illegal alcohol and those who consumed alcohol.
Two of New York's finest were murdered, as much by similar laws created by politicians as they were by the murderers who perpetrated the crime. In even more simplistic terms, 'no law, no murder.' If people are allowed to buy and sell firearms without regulatory oversight, it makes no difference to anyone. The act of buying or selling an object has no effect on crime rates, unless of course buying and selling is illegal. Not a single person is affected by their transaction because if a criminal today wants a firearm, they simply purchase it from another criminal and pay cash so there is no trail. There is no effect on crime other than to divert precious law enforcement resources away from pursuing criminals to pursuing tools of criminals and transactions between law-abiding citizens that in its self is a non-criminal activity. Criminals will always exist and murders will continue regardless of rules regulating the sale of firearms. My goodness, one only needs to look at the data world-wide. It's as clear as the nose on the face of Bill Clinton. Gun control is an abject failure. People do not become engaged in criminal acts because they are allowed to purchase firearms. There is no such thing as "the gun made me do it." That is utter nonsense. The proliferation of guns ended in Britain, but the proliferation of gun crimes continue to rise at an alarming rate to the point that toy guns are now being banned. It can only be described as desperate English politicians seeking answers as to why law-abiding citizens are being brutalized, murdered, raped and robbed by armed criminals. And so far, most citizens in Britain haven't figured out that the great political experiment to reach a "gun-free nirvana" has done nothing but turned them into social laboratory rats with criminals controlling the experiment and politicians overseeing and publishing the results.
But, if the events in Britain are not bad enough, Bloomberg feels destined to follow in their footsteps says the Times.
"Mr. Bloomberg has made prosecuting gun crimes one of the centerpieces of his law enforcement agenda. His administration, in conjunction with district attorneys, has created three special courts that are used to prosecute gun crimes, and a program to remove more guns from high-crime neighborhoods. Earlier this week, the city announced that it was cracking down on stores that sell illegal, realistic looking fake guns, fining one such store $50,000."
Bloomberg's answer is more bureaucracy, more programs, more money, and chasing down toy guns that have yet to kill or injure a single person. His aim, whether he admits it or not, is to divert more and more law enforcement resources away from doing their job of chasing down real criminals to chasing down newly invented laws. What a waste of good talent.
The war on guns continually expands, spreading its tentacles out further and further seeking citizens who violate ever decreasing minor and convoluted infractions of the law. At some point the war will end. A breaking point will be reached and signs are that people are beginning, at least in some parts of the country, to no longer be fooled by politicians and their forked tongues. It only took the 'old timers' from an earlier generation a few short years to figure out they really messed up on alcohol. But after thirty years of various wars on everything, so-called modern man from, this 'enlightened and well educated' generation, still hasn't figured it out. So much for higher education.
The war on guns gobble up ever-increasing amounts of tax money to fight crime where no crime previously existed, only to drive up ever increasing crime statistics. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of more laws creating more crime. The sad fact is that the violations of law, as a result of the war on guns, cause no harm to anyone. Yet the war on guns continues unabated creating new criminals, ensnaring otherwise law-abiding citizens, killing good police officers, followed by applauds of self adulation and back slapping for a job well done by politicians and bureaucrats. Politicians then plead for more money so that citizens can continue to 'be safe' and allow their bureacratic programs to grow ever larger.
Forty years of statistical data from the FBI says Americans are less safe today than ever. The murder rate in the U.S. remains higher today than in most years prior to implementation of modern gun control. Yet, the war on guns continues. Criminals still buy their guns from shady gun sellers out of trunks of cars while law-abiding citizens wait for the next round of gun bans, restrictions, and hoop-jumping required to exercise what most consider a constitutional right. Their rights are abridged based on the acts of the lowest common denominator of our society. If that's not an embarrassing legacy of modern society, I'm not sure what is.
Two NYC police detectives lost their lives in a sting operation that 35 years ago would not have been a crime. And the truly frustrating thing about it is, 35 years ago the entire nation, including law enforcement, could have cared less about the firearm transaction because it wasn't illegal. That's the tragedy of gun control. Because in those days, the crime was killing, robbing or threating to kill a person with a gun, not selling one to another person. Today, law enforcement spends more time working on supposed crime prevention, they can't see the forest for the trees. How do we know this? Look at the uniform crime statistics. One thing is for certain. There is more crime today in the U.S. than at anytime prior to modern gun control. The facts speak for themselves.
But, unlike the ban on guns, the ban on alcohol actually reduced consumption.
Of course, the only real casualties are the deer and a few clumsy hunters who shoot themselves in the foot.
Meanwhile, places with strict gun control like Washington DC and New York are like war zones.
I continually ask myself,"Do they even know where the push is coming from? Do they know who is at the top of the push?"
- more people with an "entitlement mentality"
- religion-based morality is less of an influence
- a much higher percentage of recent, non-english speaking immigrants
But how much of that reduction was among people who abused alcohol (and thus stopped doing so) and how much was among those who didn't? From what I've read, disesases like cirhosis were not significantly affected by prohibition, even taking into account the time lag involved with such a disease.
A disarmed populace has NO voice.
May you know that you taught me well, and for that, I will be forever grateful.
I don't know. I really don't care.
My point was that the author's use of alcohol as an analogy was a poor one. While gun prohibition doesn't reduce crime, alcohol prohibition did indeed reduce overall alcohol consumption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.