Gun Control Myths are Easily Debunked

First, congratulations to the people of Colorado for voting out two Democrat politicians who supported stricter gun control laws in the state. One was the state senate president!

Now here’s my new editorial about guns. Associated Press recently reported:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Months after gun control efforts crumbled in Congress, Vice President Joe Biden stood shoulder to shoulder …with the (US) attorney general and the top U.S. firearms official and declared the Obama administration would take two new steps to curb American gun violence.

…Still, Biden renewed a pledge from him and the president to seek legislative fixes to keep guns from those who shouldn't have them — a pledge with grim prospects for fulfillment amid the current climate on Capitol Hill. (end of AP excerpt)

OK, look at that statement: “… to keep guns from those who shouldn’t have them…”

Yes, we conservatives want that more than anything. We seek this every day. But we know that “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Because when law-abiding citizens are denied guns – which is the ultimate goal of gun control – criminals will still have them. Because criminals can always get guns; they ignore all laws.

Conservatives also want the strictest penalties for criminal use of guns. But when criminals use guns to commit crimes, liberal lawyers like public defenders and those in the ACLU gladly do everything they can to defend them and to exonerate them. This is part of the liberal tradition of siding with criminals over crime victims.

Friends, guns don’t kill; evil people kill using guns. And the primary instigator of gun violence in America today is the repetitive depiction of guns and violence in Hollywood movies and in our TV media, controlled practically exclusively by “peaceful” Democrats.

Just one example: The Columbine high school murders of 1999 were directly inspired by the Oliver Stone movie Natural Born Killers, while the Liberal Media generally ignored this fact.

Meanwhile the FBI knew about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, but did nothing about him. So perhaps we should work on these other obvious aspects of crime control instead of further limiting the abilities of law-abiding citizens to acquire and own guns.

Now look at these two excerpts about George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch patrol officer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin in 2012 after Martin attacked him. This is from Dailymail.co.uk on September 8, 2013 two months after Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Martin:

George Zimmerman was today questioned by police after allegedly threatening his estranged wife with a handgun in an altercation sparked by claims he has been having an affair, MailOnline can reveal. (end of dailymail.co.uk excerpt)

This story was all over the media for one day. The implication was that Zimmerman was really a firearms fanatic and should have been convicted in the killing of Martin.

Oops… here is usatoday.com the very next day after the truth came out:

The estranged wife of George Zimmerman opted not to press charges against her husband Monday after police in Florida responded to her sobbing 911 call reporting he had punched her father and was threatening them with a gun.

…In an audio recording of Shellie Zimmerman's 911 call, she can be heard saying Zimmerman smashed an iPad she was holding and cut it with a pocket knife, struck her father in the nose and threatened both while putting a hand on a gun.

Deputy Police Chief Colin Morgan said officers did not recover a gun, and Bracknell said Shellie Zimmerman later dropped her claim that a gun was involved. (end of usatoday.com excerpt)

So the media happily reported that a gun was involved in order to smear gun ownership. But few people will remember the follow-up, that there was no gun involved. Or the media ignored, minimized or buried the follow-up. This is a standard Liberal Media tactic when it comes to conservative issues.

This is the way that guns are treated in most of the American media. Meanwhile the same media never report on the hundreds of thousands of crimes that are prevented because the crime victim brandished a gun and scared off the perpetrator. Or used it.  At the same time foxnews.com reported:

A Christian school in Arkansas has a warning for would-be attackers: be prepared to meet your Maker if you try to harm their students.

 “Staff is armed and trained,” reads a sign posted outside the Arkansas Christian Academy in Bryant, Ark. “Any attempt to harm our children will be met with deadly force.”

School administrator Perry Black told Fox News the “purpose of the sign is to prevent us from ever having to use any kind of force.” (end of foxnews.com excerpt)

So here is a perfect example of how to protect yourself – by being armed and announcing it. It is called Peace Through Strength and it is super-effective. Because at heart criminals are cowards who will choose an easy target over a hard target any time.

And since the teachers are armed and trained then the school does not have to go to the expense of hiring armed guards. Wonderful! It’s a win-win for peace, security and economy. Meanwhile remember that the Virginia Tech campus, where the attack occurred in 2007 killing 32 people, was an avowed and publicized “gun free” zone.

This brings to mind the old parable: A criminal is looking over two houses that he is considering breaking into. One has a car in the driveway with a National Rifle Association sticker while the other has a car with an Audubon Society sticker. Which house will the criminal choose? The answer is obvious.

There is a great book published in 1998 called More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott Jr., Ph.D. It has been trashed by gun controllers when in fact Lott did an exhaustive and scientific study that supports an obvious truth – that people can protect themselves vastly more effectively with a gun than by depending on the police to protect them.  After all, as the old saying goes, “A gun in the hand is worth a lot more than a cop on the phone” when dealing with a criminal.

Lott’s book was viciously impugned even by gun controllers who had never read it, and Lott’s associations were routinely lied about. Lott reports that during radio interviews in different parts of the country after the book came out that the same accusation kept coming up from callers to the radio programs – that Lott’s research was being paid for by an ammunition manufacturer when it was not.

Indeed no matter what the truth is gun controllers lie every day to make their case. Here are some famous examples that contradict gun-control propaganda:

*Gun violence is worst in the black inner cities which are the most Democrat precincts in America, voting virtually 100% for Obama. Shouldn’t they be peaceful with all of those gun-control laws and their dedicated supporters?

*A gun club owner in Colorado had ordered scrutiny of James Holmes, who killed all those people in the movie theater in Aurora, because he thought that Holmes was strange. The club owner wanted Holmes checked out because people involved in the 2nd Amendment are extremely sensitive about legal and lawful gun ownership (ultimately he never saw Holmes again and thus never was in a position to act on him). Meanwhile police in Colorado knew that the Columbine killers had posted death threats on the internet but did nothing about them. Amazing.

*Conservative small towns in rural America that most avidly support the 2nd Amendment and where firearms ownership rates are high generally have very low rates of gun crime compared to other places.

*The troubled Newtown, Connecticut school killer was unable to make a gun purchase under Connecticut’s strict laws at the time, yet he went on to kill 26 people, including 20 children, with another weapon. So the existing law worked but still did not stop the murders.

*Existing Virginia laws would have stopped the Virginia Tech killer from buying a gun, but they were circumvented by a psychologist who had treated the killer previous to the murders. The psychologist did not think that Cho Seung Hui was crazy enough to be put on a database that would have prevented him from acquiring the gun. Yet Democrats want more and more laws. Gee, how about a new law demanding scrutiny of the competence of Virginia psychologists?

There are countless more stories like these that belie the gun-control propaganda. Meanwhile all that we hear from gun controllers is that we need more laws and restrictions and that that will magically reduce gun violence. It will not. We need to go in the opposite direction, empowering citizens to protect themselves and demanding a halt in Hollywood and TV violence. These two steps will significantly reduce crime in America, guaranteed. Period. End of story.

(Please bookmark this website. And please click the Google button (g+1) at the top of this page and recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook, MySpace and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.