Guns Don’t Kill, Gun Control Does

246648_255751814570960_364633628_nDemocratic Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) told MSNBC yesterday that if we just had more background checks and increased penalties for straw purchasers the Boston Marathon bombing wouldn’t have happened.

“As it stands right now, the next Tamerlan can go to a gun show and buy all the guns he wants, all the weapons he wants, and no problem, no questions asked,” said the ignorant New York lawmaker.

The problem with people like Rep. Maloney is that nothing they say relating to gun control is based in reality. The fact is that the Tsarnaev brothers didn’t even do most of their killing with a gun. According to ABC News, authorities have only recovered a single, semi-automatic, Ruger 9mm pistol to date. The serial number of the pistol had been destroyed, so the gun most likely wasn’t even purchased legally. And you can’t buy the things they used to kill people at the Boston Marathon at a gun show. Maloney’s baloney doesn’t cut the mustard.

Since the Gabriel Giffords, Aurora Colorado, and Newtown shootings, the clamor for guns by law-abiding Americans has soared. The American people don’t want more gun control. Yet, the media and the political hacks all the way up to the White House in the gun control movement continue to tell us that a majority of Americans want the government to take away our guns.

Despite media hysteria, however, the national mood shifted against new federal restrictions. According to Pew, 72% of Republicans, 55% of independents and 27% of Democrats feel protecting gun ownership trumps “controlling guns”.

As American gun ownership hits record highs awareness that “gun control laws” do not keep guns from criminals grows. Sensing this shift, most politicians sprinted from post-Aurora gun control discussions, knowing it was election season poison.

The idiocy has infected every level of government too.

Chicago mayor Richard Daley said that his dilapidated city would “go back to the Old West” after the Supreme Court struck down the city’s draconian gun control laws.

Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis also criticized the decision. “From a law enforcement perspective, this will no doubt make a police officer’s job more challenging than it already is, particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago,” Weis said.

The media was all over the SCOTUS decision predicting anarchy in the streets. In reality, nearly every violent crime – including murder – has dropped since the law was overturned. It was as if criminals became instantly aware that their prey may be armed now.

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” – Robert A. Heinlein

10 Comments on “Guns Don’t Kill, Gun Control Does

  1. We have an Assault-Media Problem, not an “assault weapon” problem in this nation. It is, in fact not even an exaggeration to say that our much of our MSMedia is Subversive.

    CJ, The Blaze has some excellent pics of you up at their site. I hadn’t realized that you are our Veteran that’s been done very wrongly per your carrying, till now. Very glad to hear your case will be closed soon and that you will be receiving justice in the matter.

    God bless you and yours,
    and sincere hugs from a homesick Texan.
    K~

    • Karen, thanks for the kind words. Sorry you aren’t here in our great state, but I’m sure we’ll pull you back in soon enough. Not sure when the criminal case will be closed, but we have already started the civil case.

  2. An armed and angry mod is the last thing any criminal would ever want to do with, which is precisely why, I think, you see a whole lot of politicians pushing for disarmament – there’s a whole lot of opportunity for crime in public office, and if you and your friends control the only weapons, there’s a whole lot less to worry about if you get caught.

  3. More, criminals are predators of opportunity. With strict gun controls on the law abiding citizenry you create more opportunity for crime, while also reducing the potential for a negative outcome for the criminal.

    Granted, they will eventually get caught, but how many people must suffer said criminal before he is brought to justice rather than simply removing the opportunity for the criminal to commit the crime, or failing that, make it so dangerous to commit it only a criminal of the insane variety would try to commit said crime?

    A case in point; gun shows have a whole lot of motive and potential opportunity for crime – lots of cash and all kinds of goodies there criminals would just love to get their hands on.

    How many gun shows actually *get* robbed? How many even have meaningful security at the event? Not one that I’ve ever been to.

  4. The straight and simple fact is that if someone is willing to trade their life for someone else’s, they cannot be stopped unless someone kills them first.

  5. I really hate to beat the dead horse here, but criminals, by definition, don’t care what the law is.

    In the event of guns suddenly disappearing from the streets, it would immediately be crossbows, knives, clubs, or whatever else a criminal could get their hands on as a force multiplier.

    Anything, and I mean anything, can be used as an improvised weapon. If you want a violence free world you’re going to have to change human nature or get enough padded cells and straight jackets for every person on the planet.

  6. Hey this is my first post on your blog, i think its fantastic. I just have a different point of view. Even though recent terrorists may have purchased guns legally, advocating that we shouldnt have background checks is similar to advocating criminals or gang members or any other threat to society should be able to get a gun more problem. Realistically speaking, events like the Boston bombings and the Newtown shooting only happen once in a blue moon. The real danger are the crimes that happen every day. Chicago is the murder capitol of the world right now and id much rather sleep knowing people sucked into gang wars were less likely able to get their hands on a weapon. Kids die every week in Chicago and thats just one example. I think we have the responsibility as Americans to protect our family and to protect our society. Now thats not the same as saying the government should take away the guns of a law abiding civilian. I should be able to carry a firearms under the second amendment. It doensnt make me a threat to society to live under my rights and to protect myself. But for those in poor neighborhoods and involved in gun related crime or those involved in gun related crime in general who are a clear threat to our American society, I believe we have the right to protect our people and prevent them from being as much of a threat. Now the terrorists who attacked Boston didnt use guns. They used bombs. So the notion that gun laws would solve all domestic crimes is utterly stupid. No law will ever completely prevent crime because the enemy is not guns, the enemy is human nature. Its in our nature to be violent and to solve that, we have to do our job as a society to treat each others with care from when we are children so people dont grow up in a bad environment, whether it be family issues or societal influences that cause us to grow up in a way to demonstrate hate and aggression with violence against our citizens. To solve crime, we have to do our part and take care of each other and treat each other with compassion so you dont have people developing hate and aggression in the first place. But to say that we shouldnt attempt to prevent the people who are filled with hate and are menacing and threatening to our society from having guns is ignorant. This type of gun control wont “fix” all crime but it definitely may help save lives of others who’s deaths may have been prevented. So its not a solution but it can help a great deal. At least thats my opinion. Great article though. keep up the good work 🙂

    • You bring up Chicago, which is a perfect example of why what you propose won’t work. Chicago has one of the strictest gun control laws in the entire country. And yet, they are the murder capital of the world. The problem with the background checks being “strengthened” as proposed is that we are allowing government to increasingly decide who should and shouldn’t have guns. Unless those gang members in Chicago already have a criminal record, they’ll still be able to buy guns under background checks.

      Instead of limited who can have guns, how about we ensure everyone that wants one can get one. I guarantee you that a sane person with a gun will ensure that an insane person with a gun gets off fewer shots.

  7. I’d say that at the root of most, if not all, gun-related crime are factors far more dire, ubiquitous, and difficult to tackle: poverty; drug-addiction; mental instability (About 3.6 percent of U.S. adults aged 18 to 54 (5.2 million people) have PTSD during the course of a given year: http://www.ptsd.ne.gov/what-is-ptsd.html), organized crime; municipal, state, martial, & governmental abuses, et al.

    Gun-related crime is often the result of something much larger and nebulous than can be attacked with a single piece of legislation. I feel that they tend to characterize the efficacy of the bill in a way that lends it a magic, light-switchy power over the attitudes of mankind. Delusions of grandeur? Or just plain Subterfuge? Probably a mixture of both. With a variable dash of ignorance thrown in–I’m not sure there is a standard dosage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *