Another liberal with the mind of a six year old.
Posted on 08/18/2007 9:20:36 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
WASHINGTON -- Tougher laws and stricter enforcement cost nearly 200,000 gun dealers their licenses since the mid-1990s, a new study shows.
Led by California -- the state with the steepest decline -- the number of federally licensed firearms dealers has fallen 79% nationwide since 1994. In that year, Congress adopted new gun-control measures that still spark fiery debate.
"The sharp drop in gun dealers is one of the most important, and little noticed, victories in the effort to reduce firearms violence in America," said Marty Langley, an analyst with the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control advocacy group funded by the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation.
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
What next? Are we going to be forced to buy firearms from the trunk of cars like the bad guys do? No waiting, cash up front and off you go. Make all firearms unlawfull and we’ll all be going to speak easy dealers. There will be more than drugs coming into this country from Asia, Central and South America for sure.
A totally misleading statement. It makes it sound like those gun dealers had their licenses revoked, which is not the case. The reality is that the Klinton Administration made life much tougher on gun dealers through new requirements, ATF inspections, etc. People that had gun dealer licenses solely to maintain their own collections or sold a low volume of guns chose not to renew.
Now let’s outlaw cars to prevent DUIs.
Alcohol tobacco and firearms should be a convenience store not a government bureaucracy.
I had a couple of friends who had a license and only every now and a gain bought a weapon for somebody they knew.
In fact thats how I bought my first rifle. They all dropped their license after the stricter laws and inspections. Oh, yeah, the country is really safer now with them out of business.
So, they’ve managed to hassle some gun dealers out of business. So what? Has it made a bit of difference as far as violent crime committed by criminals with guns? I don’t think so. Only two things make a real difference. First, states which have passed laws “liberalizing” citizens’ rights to carry. Second, the unrelenting use of mandatory federal time for a “felon in possession” of a firearm. Both of these two things have also been going on concurrently with the “anti’s” efforts to shut down gun dealers. Unfortunately, this allows them to get by with the logical fallacy which is known as “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”. It basically means that a person thinks that because something happened AFTER a certain action that it happened BECAUSE of that action.
I don’t much like gun laws, even those which “allow” me to carry after securing a “permit”, because exercising my constitutional rights shouldn’t require a permit, a tax or a fee. But, right now, it’s all we’ve got. I don’t even really like the “felon in possession” statutes because the power of government has become such that they could make just about anybody a “felon” if they wanted.
Interesting that they claim this since the total number of firearms in the U.S. is still climbing. Looks like the author went straight to the gun-grabber group for all the stats in this article.
Whenever I hear Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms I think “Great, Who’s bringin’ the chips?”
Ah, what is "firearms violence"? If a perp duct tapes a victime, then strangles the victim with rope, do we talk about "duct tape violence" or "rope violence"? If not, why not?
Second, if VPC means that the drop in gun dealers has had the effect of reducing crimes committed with guns, I have two works for the VPC: PROVE IT.
Finally, if the passage of Concealed Carry Laws has reduced crimes, including those committed with firearms, would the VPC acknowedge that? If not, the VPC should not be trusted with anything they say and the reporter, who calls on the VPC is also a propagandist, not a journalist.
Guns laws
Something to think about
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. .
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938, Germany established gun control. .
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. .
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. .
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. .
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. .
From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: ABOUT 55 MILLION!
So, the next time someone tries to tell you that this country needs MORE gun control laws, ask them:
“Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?”
Bigots at the Violence Policy Center
by Ari Armstrong, April 21, 2005
The disarmament group Violence Policy Center (VPC) repeats a vicious lie about gun owners on its web page: “The harsh reality is that too many Americans love their guns more than they love their children.”
The VPC’s statement is pure bigotry. In reality, none of the scores of millions of responsible American gun owners loves their guns more than they love their children. To suggest otherwise is to stereotype gun owners as vicious, even sub-human monsters who suffer severe mental instability. In the past, similar bigotry has been on display against groups such as Jews and homosexuals in mid-century Germany, property owners in Soviet Russia, intellectuals in China, and various ethnic groups in the United States.
The VPC’s wildly hysterical character attack serves to impugn the motives of its opponents, foster the legal persecution of peaceable and virtuous Americans, foment bigotry against and stereotyping of gun owners, and distract attention away from rational debate. After all, if your opponents are vicious monsters indifferent to the death of children, rather than upstanding citizens with good reasons behind their actions and political views, what need is there to take their arguments seriously?
The VPC’s web page continues: “In a Knight Ridder /Tribune article distributed nationwide, VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann writes: In just 10 days last month, two mass murder-suicides — one ending in a Minnesota high school, the other taking place during a religious service in a Wisconsin hotel — left a combined toll of 18 dead and more than 10 injured. As Americans go through the familiar ritual of asking how this could happen, the National Rifle Association has a stark answer articulated by former head Harlon Carter more than 20 years ago. America’s gun death toll, he explained, was simply ‘the price of freedom.’ ‘The price of freedom’: More bodies.”
Yet the VPC scrupulously avoids relevant facts and picks out one misquoted, out-of-context remark on which to base its attack. In reality, advocates of the right of gun ownership make quite different arguments in support of their views, starting with the fact that gun ownership also saves lives. At least hundreds of thousands of times every year, Americans use a gun, usually just by brandishing it rather than by firing it, to defend themselves from criminal attack. The majority of states have passed right-to-carry laws because such laws have a proven benefit in reducing crime — unlike the anti-gun laws endorsed by VPC. So the main argument made by those who advocate the right of self-defense and of gun ownership is that freedom is a necessary prerequisite for safety.
There is, of course, a grain of truth to the view VPC attacks. All matters of liberty can result in some bad consequences: what’s crucial is to look at the benefits of liberty on net. For example, the First Amendment protects the Neo-Nazi hate literature that the school shooter at Red Lake found so appealing. Protections against unreasonable searches and seizures sometimes let violent criminals get away. Religious freedom sometimes allows for fanaticism. Every year people die pursuing recreational activities such as boating, swimming, and skiing. Every year roughly five times as many deaths are associated with automobiles as are associated with gun-related homicides (and close to twice as many when we add gun-related suicides), and many of those automobile deaths involve recreational activity. Irresponsible sex can be deadly. The drug alcohol is used responsibly by most people, both for recreational purposes and for health benefits, yet it is associated with tens of thousands of premature deaths every year along with 42% of violent crimes, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Yet VPC doesn’t therefore argue the government should repeal the First Amendment, lift all restraints on police searches, control people’s recreational and sexual activities, return to alcohol Prohibition, or generally restrict every freedom that can be abused, which means every freedom. Of course we must also count the benefits of freedom.
VPC argues that the freedom to own a gun should be further restricted, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use guns responsibly, that guns are almost always used safely for recreational purposes, that guns are frequently used to defend against criminals, and that the sort of disarmament laws VPC endorses are a proven failure ignored by criminals and damaging to upstanding citizens.
True enough, some legal restrictions are appropriate and protective of freedom. For example, the use of a gun to threaten or attack somebody is properly illegal. Property owners retain the right to set gun policies for that property. Existing child-abuse statutes already allow parents who harm their children intentionally or through negligence to be prosecuted. Minors are restricted from purchasing guns (as well as alcohol). Assisting a violent criminal is also a crime. In general, the legal restrictions of guns that are appropriate and useful are already in place.
VPC’s strategy, then, is to demonize gun owners rather than to take their arguments seriously. This explains why VPC generally cherry-picks its data and utterly ignores the substance of contrary statistical evidence, economic theories, criminological studies, and historical treatments. Sure, VPC will sometimes mention contrary views, but generally to serve the purposes of propaganda, not to seriously respond to its opponents. After all, if gun owners are horrible monsters indifferent to the death of children, if their view of freedom is that it causes only death, then there’s no reason to take seriously their arguments. VPC adopts as its starting premise the view that gun owners are inherently depraved and irrational, a premise that can allow only the responses of character attack, propaganda, and political force against gun owners.
Fortunately, VPC’s hysterical attacks on the character and motives of gun owners and advocates of the right of gun ownership has backfired. The quickest glance at reality proves VPC’s central presumptions wrong. For the most part, Americans recognize that self-defense is a fundamental human right grounded on the right to life, and that gun owners are generally responsible people with good reasons behind their views and actions.
The Colorado Freedom Report—www.FreeColorado.com
How about higher fees, harrassment inspections causing the surrender of licenses. There is no doubt the Government intended that, starting in the Clinton era and continuing with Bush.
We have come a long way from when Thomas J. Dodd and Emanual Cellar “ONLY wanted to register handguns. Long guns would not be affected.” way back in 1961.
Another liberal with the mind of a six year old.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm
Bass Turds are are finally admitting that was the plan all along, namely eliminate the legitimate sources of firearms.
Of course. As Ann Rand wrote:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
These are the times when...
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
H. L. Mencken
I doubt that has helped at all. Anyone willing to use a firearm to commit crimes with even stiffer penalties, is not going to be deterred by that law.
Prior to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons had their rights restored upon "paying their debt", which would include serving any probation or parole time. Even then only those convicted of violent felonies were covered. Gradually that was expanded to any conviction of any crime punishable by more than 1 year in prison (regardless of a person's actual sentence.) Now if you have a protection order against you as part of a divorce decree, you are a "prohibited person", although in that case only temporarily, unless of course you weren't aware of the disability and get caught with your over and under at the trap range.
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.