I’ll pander to the base, no matter what damage it does to my presidential aspirations.
“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”
Perhaps Obama should have checked with Al Gore before dismissing the concerns of gun owners in the US. You know, the Al Gore who would have won the 2000 presidential election if he had managed to carry his home state of Tennessee?
While Tennessee has moved to the right in national politics, Mr. Gore has moved to the left since his days as a congressman, particularly on issues like abortion and gun control that have put him at odds with many Southern voters. If he had not, Professor Geer said, ”He could still have carried Tennessee, but he would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.”
Hmmmm. So Gore had to move to the left on gun control to get the Democratic nomination, but doing so cost him his home state and the Presidency of the USofA. Wonder if he sees that as a good trade-off?
I know many Canadians don’t understand America’s “gun fetish”. But there is a large segment of the population that sees the Second Amendment as an important part of our history and our birthright. Add that to the fact that no study has ever shown a benefit to gun control laws, and you wonder about the need of politicians to make these kinds of vacuous statements. More innocents will get shot in altercations? How does a situation in which my attacker is armed while I am not make me safer?
If you bother to read the CDC brief linked to above - be sure to note the disclaimer:
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)
When you actually read the white paper, you will find that “insufficient evidence” means that the data didn’t turn out the way they thought it would, so more study is needed. And you have to love the caveat that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness. In other words - the data doesn’t show ANY benefit to strict gun control laws, but that shouldn’t dissuade you from believing the dogma that more gun control = less violent crime. In fact, the obverse seems to be true. Yes, I know that Newsbusters is despised as a “right wing rag”. But the data in the article is culled from reliable sources. So, if you’re inclined to dismiss the article out of hand because of the source, then at least try and put your bias away for a moment and look at the data.
Table 4 – Violent Crime Rate Averages, 2005[9]
Population Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault
RTC 394.4 4.8 35.6 93.6 260.4
Non-RTC 504.0 6.9 28.1 173.2 295.7
Pct Difference 27.8 43.8 (21.1) 85.0 13.6
(RTC = right to carry a concealed firearm, expat)
Look at homicide and robbery - a pretty significant percent difference between RTC and non-RTC regions.
Think that’s a fluke? Well, if more gun control = less violent crime, the England must be a utopian garden of peace and tranquility, right? Well, not so much.
Britain has the most severe “gun control” laws in the world. Not even members of the British Olympic Shooting Team are allowed pistols. The British are reduced to registered single- and double-barreled shotguns, and the maximum permitted shell load is birdshot.
According to the arguments of gun-control advocates, Britain should be safe and crime free. But, alas, violent crime and robberies have skyrocketed. Gunfights between rival immigrant gangs caused the revolution in British policing. In Robin Hood’s Nottinghamshire, constables now patrol in pairs armed with semi-automatic pistols. They are backed up by armed-response vehicles (ARVs) stocked with submachine guns.
If gun control makes society safe, why was it necessary to overthrow British police tradition, arm police with semiautomatic weapons and provide machinegun backup? As a test case in gun control, Britain proves it to be a total failure. The result is exactly the one predicted by the National Rifle Association: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
In Britain, a man’s home may be his castle where the king of England cannot enter without a warrant, but robbers and rapists enter at will. It is easier and less risky for a criminal to have his way with a victim in the privacy of the victim’s home than in public. Gun control has made home invasion safe for criminals.
The right to self defense is universal, and universal rights are not up to governments to grant, but rather to uphold. Some, however, disagree.
