For many people the word propaganda evokes dark connotations of the Third Reich and swastikas along with fascist and communist regimes. Many people hear the word propaganda and automatically associate it with negative, oppressive actions. In order to understand where people get the idea that propaganda is an evil nemesis, let's first define it. propaganda is the spreading of ideas or information deliberately to further one's cause or damage an opposing cause; also ideas, facts, or allegations spread for such a purpose, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Nowhere does the definition describe propaganda as existing solely to coerce others to be mere myrmidons of the state. The reason many people think of propaganda the way they do is because of government indoctrination or, in other words, equivocations the government (and left) utilizes to affect and taint the citizen's view of politically motivated advertisements. Although this article will expose some of the methods of left-wing distortion, I am not writing about the usage and influence of propaganda. This article will address the gun control issue and, as previously mentioned, uncover some of the equivocal techniques the left uses to push its illogical, shameful anti-gun agenda.
Without a doubt, this writing will be labeled right-wing propaganda and be thought of as radical by some people, particularly gigantic intellectuals such as Dianne Feinstein, Joni Kletter, Gregory Peck, Cynthia Tucker, members of the so-called Million Mom March, and leftist groups. Whatever disgusting rhetoric and outlandish statistics the left uses to further its illogical belief, one can see past their omissions and half-truths by using simple logic and reasoning skills combined with the facts.
Guns are inanimate objects. In the world's entire history, no inanimate object has ever done anything but obey the laws of gravity and physics. That being said, the old phrase "People don't kill people, guns kill people"should be discarded as incorrect. Crime is a people problem, not a hardware problem. To suppose that regulating guns will in turn regulate human behavior is ridiculous. Of course, the proponents of gun control sadly fail to realize the facts.
You see, these people cannot deal with the logic of the matter, therefore they hide from it and must resort to using half-truths and manipulative statements. You are more than likely familiar with Bill Clinton's claim that more than a dozen children are killed by guns each day. Did you know that in that certain statistic, a child is defined as anyone twenty-five years old or younger? The reason the age is so high is because if it wasn't, Clinton and all his demagogues might actually have to face up to the truth; if it wasn't like that they couldn't put on a frown and talk about how many children are killed every day by guns. On another note, the majority (approximately 70%) of the children killed each day by people using guns are "gangbangers" or other criminals alike who commit crimes and denigrate our society on a daily basis. Do you really think that a "gangbanger" is going to keep a lock on his gun or abide by the laws? I think not.
Let's now move on to discuss Dianne Feinstein. Mrs. Feinstein is a Senator from California; she is also a Democrat. One of the actions that gained her notoriety in the gun debate was her crusade to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. That idea of hers is based purely on cosmetic features. Despite media depictions, real assault rifles are extremely rarely used in crimes. Also, she has just recently introduced a bill that would require all legal gun owners in the U.S. to be licensed, fingerprinted, photographed, tested, and forced to sign safety contracts with the federal government. However, the most horrific aspect of her proposal is that gun owners' licenses could be revoked at any time if the owner ever became disqualified under any new or old federal gun laws. Basically, a legitimate gun owner's license is on the brink of revocation at any time because the government says it is. Haven't the citizens of California gotten sick and tired of this woman already? Mrs. Feinstein is quick to attack the responsible gun owning citizens of America for owning firearms; however, she is also quick to buy and carry a gun herself. Mrs. Feinstein had (and probably still does) a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Either she might actually have begun to see just how asinine the anti-gun crowd really is (doubtful), or the hypocrisy is absurd.
Throughout all the gun hysteria, you will constantly hear liberals refer to nonsense data and make statements that are completely devoid of any rational thought whatsoever. Recently a column appeared in the Yale Daily News that confronted the gun control issue. The column, written by Joni Kletter, was later reprinted in The Oklahoman; it was in The Oklahomanwhere David Deming read the column. Dr. Deming is an associate professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, holds a Ph.D., and is an NRA member; obviously this man is not stupid. In Ms. Kletter's commentary she brilliantly wrote, "easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country, including criminals, youth and the mentally disabled, to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want."
First of all, let's examine an obvious lack of logic displayed by this woman: Deranged killers with handguns would have a lot easier time killing "as many random people as they want"if their victims were all prohibited from owning handguns. Anyway, Dr. Deming decided he should respond to the column with a very valid point: "I just want to point out that Kletter's 'easy access' to a vagina enables her to 'quickly and easily' have sex with 'as many random people' as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let's hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs."It is undeniably so that easy access to a gun gives a person the chance to use that gun and go on a killing spree. Same thing with anyone behind the wheel of an automobile driving past a group of pedestrians. However, the very same easy access to a gun gives a person the opportunity to defend himself against a predator with bad intentions.
Do you enjoy watching movies? Have you seen the latest Tom Hanks, Susan Sarandon, Rosie O'Donnel, or Gregory Peck production? If you haven't, good. If you have, read on. I refuse to pay to watch Tom Hanks movies. Mainly I do this because he periodically donates money to Clinton's legal defense fund. I don't know about you, but I don't want one cent of my money going to aid that pig Clinton. Susan Sarandon, the Hollywood communist and speaker at the recent Million Mom March protest, is ignorant. Rosie O'Donnel, the anti-gun eccentric loudmouth, is also ignorant. However, Gregory Peck takes the prize for making a dreadfully foolish statement pushing for more firearm legislation. Mr. Peck once said, "Can anyone deny that there won't be another Columbine?"Peck said that at an anti-gun meeting that called for more gun laws. However, possession of a firearm by a minor is already illegal. What does he want Congress to do? Make it MORE illegal? It's not surprising, though, to see some of these Hollywood-type thespians engaged in such lame ploys. Here's a bit of extra information -- when the Million Mom March was finished, Susan and Rosie went back to their expensive homes and high-rises protected by none other than men with guns.
Speaking of the Million Mom March (which, not to mention, is illegal), it's really just a Clinton publicity gimmick in disguise. These ladies taint their statistics with deception and are liars. Perhaps the best way to confront the Million Mom March is to just go into their propaganda and show you how they're not exactly telling you the whole story. They do not tell you that in 1998, while actually only 110 children aged 1-14 died from gunshot wounds, 200 suffocated on ingested objects, 570 died from burns, 850 drowned and 2,600 died in auto wrecks. Contrary to the impression created by sensationalist media and the Million Mom March, firearm accidents are at the lowest level since this country started keeping statistics in 1903. The protest's organizers report that "American children under fifteen are twelve times more likely to die from gunfire than children in twenty-five other industrialized countries combined."
They don't tell you, however, that they included Hong Kong and Kuwait, where gun ownership is absolutely banned, in their list of the twenty-five industrialized countries, but somehow failed to include countries like Brazil and Russia as industrialized. The reason? These countries have murder rates four times higher than the U.S. The Million Mom March says that the Brady Bill has prevented over 400,000 convicted felons from purchasing firearms. Simply not so. First of all, most of the people who are prevented from buying firearms at a retail location by the Brady Bill are not convicted felons...the reason they are denied is most often due to paperwork errors. Look, it's a federal crime for a convicted felon to attempt to purchase a firearm. If 400,000 felons have violated this law, where are the prosecutions? In 1997 only thirty-six people were prosecuted and convicted of violating the Brady Bill. Oh, by the way...the Million Mom March parade permit lists an official participation of only 10,000 people. Seems these ladies just aren't very good with numbers.
The mainstream media, a favorite tool of the left, also greatly contributes to the brainwashing of society. Last year in Georgia it became easier for a citizen to obtain a permit for the concealed carry of a handgun. Needless to say, this upset many liberals, especially Cynthia Tucker. Ms. Tucker, an editor and writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote that it would be "open season" on police officers and that officers would die in large numbers due to the increased level of ease for private citizens to obtain concealed weapon permits. This is a perfect instance of the aversion to the facts most leftists have on the issue. The fact is, as pointed out by Neal Boortz, that there has never been one documented incident anywhere in the United States where a police officer was shot in the line of duty by a private citizen carrying a concealed handgun for which he had a permit. What is frightening is that this woman controls what you read in the newspaper. How's that for propaganda, or should I say the lack of and purposeful disregard for more logical, rationalized newstories that show the positive usage of firearm possession? Americans use guns to defend themselves over two million times each year -- and 98% of the time the gun isn't even fired, just shown.
You have undoubtedly heard the words "gun lobby" uttered before. The truth is that special interest and focus groups (the mainstream media alike) constantly refer to Second Amendment supporters as the "gun lobby." Remember, we're in an era of government dominated by emotion, not logic, reason, or fact. People have a hostile emotional reaction to the word "lobby." They view lobbyists as corrupt money-wielding crooks bent on subverting the will of Congress. In short, people don't like lobbyists. So if there's a cause or a group of people you don't like, just pin the name "lobby" on them and you'll get an instantaneous negative reaction from many of the slower-thinking voters. Take a moment now and think about some phrases that could be used to replace the term "gun lobby." If you couldn't think of any, here are some marvelous ones suggested by Mr. Boortz: "Second Amendment Lobby, Truth Lobby, Freedom Lobby, Right to Self-Defense Lobby, Constitution Lobby, Fight Back Lobby, The I Wish to Protect My Family Lobby, The I Don't Want to Get Raped and Murdered Lobby, Personal Rights Lobby," et cetera. Furthermore, these slower-thinking voters are the same people who encourage the "sensible" and "common sense" gun control approach. Before advancing any further, let's first revert to the Million Mom March for a moment. They advocate the registration and regulation of guns, but did you see any marchers carrying signs detailing just how they are going to get criminals to obtain licenses for and register their guns?
So what would registration accomplish? One thing. It would make it easier for the government to seize guns when that order comes, as I believe it surely will. What do these women and all the other gun control advocates resort to when their idiotic proposals make absolutely no sense? They start tacking the word "sensible" in front of their idea. Then, day after day, night after night, newscast after newscast, the people of this country hear the words "sensible gun control," from the president, from the myrmidons, from Rosie, from Susan, from Cynthia; sensible, sensible, sensible gun control. Repeat the lie often enough and soon people believe it to be the truth. Ever notice that whenever a new piece of firearm legislation is passed or introduced the left refers to it as a great "first step?" First step to what? Make no mistake about it; their ultimate goal is to eliminate the private ownership of guns in the United States. They know they can't accomplish this all at once in one massive takeover. So bit by bit, march by march, law by law, they will work until their aspiration becomes reality.
Before I proceed, I want to clarify a vulgar generalization made by many gun control advocates and the liberal media. Many people point out that Japan has a very low rate of gun violence due to the fact that it's nearly impossible to legally obtain a gun there. That is true; Japan does, in fact, have only a small amount of gun related violence. What the mainstream media doesn't tell you is that Japan is a police state; always has been. Furthermore, they have no protection against unreasonable search and seizure. If a Japanese government agent wants to enter your living quarters, he may do so without any prior suspicions, probable cause, or warrants. Basically, if a Japanese official wishes to rummage through your undergarment collection like a pervert, he may, legally. How do you think these conditions would hold up in America? Many people, especially women, would have no objections to it. One major problem facing the United States today is people voting for increased security over liberty. The news corporations and the government have people believing that psychotic murderers lurk behind every street corner, hackers and pedophiles sit behind every computer screen, and that the man living in some cabin in the woods somewhere is a gun-toting extremist. These assumptions are simply not true. In essence, don't believe everything you see or read in the news.
Look, I'm not denying that there is a serious crime problem in America. There is, but gun control is definitely not the answer. Surely enough, the facts show that violent crime rates decrease when it becomes easier for private, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. The reason is simple and makes sense: Criminals don't like the idea that their victims may be armed. Still not convinced? Here are some cold, hard facts for you to choke on: 99.998% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in a murder in any given year, and 99.96% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in any crime in a given year. Now that's a fact that just screams for more gun control, isn't it? Also, out of all violent crimes committed, ones where guns were used account for fewer than only 12%; and the vast majority of the guns used to commit those crimes were stolen.
One more thing, instead of creating new firearm legislation, wouldn't it make more sense to just enforce the current gun laws? Bill Clinton doesn't think so. Since Clinton has entered office, prosecutions for firearm violations have declined nearly 50%, yet this creep continues to call for more gun legislation. Pathetic. Clinton also calls for the mandatory distribution of both gun and trigger locks upon purchasing a firearm. Don't get me wrong now, I am not a total anti-trigger lock advocate; these devices could prove useful in certain scenarios. However, let's imagine that a law-abiding citizen is walking down the street minding his own business. All of a sudden, a criminal approaches this man and attempts to assault and rob him. What does the potential victim do? He draws his gun for self-defense purposes...but wait, the predator notices that the man has a trigger lock on his gun. The felon then abruptly laughs as this man just went from being a potential victim to being a victim. Another blemish in the trigger lock debate is that people who know their gun has a lock on it will be more likely to keep their gun lying around in plain view or otherwise act more carelessly towards their firearm. Furthermore, yet another distinct flaw in the typical liberal ideology is blatantly contradictory and irrational. It basically goes something like this: Most people cannot be trusted, so we make laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted. Now if that isn't a shining example of left-wing nihility, then I don't know what is.
As each piece of firearm legislation accrues on another, it is ultimately leading to the disarmament of private citizens in the United States. Socialists like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are set on this; they await the day when it is illegal for Americans to possess and use guns. Look, the fact of the matter is that guns are here to stay. Deal with it. Let's face the facts here. Guns are a deterrent to crime. Otherwise why would police officers carry them? A nationwide confiscation of guns would solve nothing; it would only make matters worse. If guns were deemed contraband, then only criminals and the GOVERNMENT would carry them. Is that what you want? Criminals have zero regard for the law right now, why would that be any different once guns are outlawed? Criminals are still going to obtain and use guns whether they are illegal or not. This is serious, folks. If we remain on our current path, it will inevitably lead us to the day when it is a felony for a man to own a gun, to exercise his Second Amendment right. In case you forgot, the Second Amendment is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Some people interpret the Second Amendment as a method of enabling only the government to arm a government militia. This is an obscene misinterpretation. If, in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment to our Constitution is to enable the government to arm a government militia, then this would be the only one of the ten amendments constituting the Bill of Rights that confers a power or right on the government. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well regulated one, is not required to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. As for the anti-gun advocates who refer to the words "well regulated" as an indicator of the necessity for established gun control, we already have approximately 20,000 federal gun laws; the gun business is already regulated. On the other hand, some people construe the Second Amendment as being out of context in this time period. Their argument is that back in the 1770's the people were an integral part of the country's defense, and nowadays they are not. If that's the card they want to play, one could also argue that the First Amendment, that would be the one which guarantees freedom of speech and religion, is out of context in today's society. The Bill of Rights was officially adopted in 1791. Prior to that time and during the American Revolutionary War, many people were persecuted for expressing beliefs and ideas inconsistent with Great Britain's. One could reasonably argue that some motivation for the First Amendment derived from past injustices committed by the English. Since Great Britain is no longer a direct threat to the sovereignty of America and no longer punishes Americans for having differing beliefs, should we abolish the First Amendment? Is the First Amendment out of context now? Of course it's not. Few people realize that the Second Amendment makes all the other amendments possible. You can't just chisel one amendment away without weakening the entire structure of the Constitution. Once they take your guns away, they can take whatever they want. Just remember, when they come to take your guns, give them the ammunition first.
The propaganda is more powerful than the gun, I'm afraid. A prime example of the systematic deterioration of our society's view of guns lies within nearly every neighborhood and township in our country. Thirty years ago if someone saw a boy riding his bike down the street with a.22 caliber rifle slung over his shoulder, it would probably be assumed that he is going target shooting or squirrel hunting. These days, if someone noticed a boy riding his bike down the street carrying a.22 caliber rifle the police would be called and he would be suspected of plotting to kill someone. The very notion that American citizens should not be allowed to possess firearms appalls me, and it should appall every single American as well.
Though many people believe the firearm contention to be unique to post-modernistic politics, it is not. Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin were all fierce believers in gun control. Under their totalitarian regimes they maintained the unjust laws which prohibited the possession of, distribution of, and usage of firearms by the state's citizens. I say "the state's citizens" because these dictators operated authoritarian regimes; regimes that forbade their people from exercising basic fundamental rights. We do not live in nazi-Germany or the communist Soviet Union. We live in the United States of America. We are not property of the state. Rather we are supposed to be unique individuals; individuals who are supposed to be free and who need to be able to possess guns. The people living under Hitler's "Third Reich" weren't allowed to own guns and look what happened there. Hitler's disdain for freedom and justice was perhaps best illustrated when he said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so"So, use wisely your power of choice. After all, if a Democrat wins the presidential election then, short of a revolution, the writing will be on the wall for the gun industry and freedom loving Americans. If, after reading this, you still support the gun control effort, then you have a serious comprehension inability. Bill "The Era of Big Government Is Over"Clinton is a liar, crook, and a rapist. His wife is a liar and criminal as well; remember that. The final words of this text come from Charley Reese. "You can rely on the government to protect you and your family, but as for me, I will choose Colt, Glock, and Remington. They're more reliable than the administration and more accurate than most newstories about firearms."
Some Startling Statistics:
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gunowners.
The labels ''lobby'' and ''special interest group'' are rarely used by journalists to describe lobbies or special interest groups like the American Association of Retired Persons, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, or Handgun Control Inc. But when they refer to the National Rifle Association, ''lobby'' is frequently the first word that springs to mind.
That is one of many anomalies documented by Brian Patrick, a University of Michigan scholar who spent a year comparing the coverage of the NRA in several prestigious newspapers - The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Christian Science Monitor - with the coverage of the four other groups. He dissected some 1,500 published articles, columns, editorials, and letters, and his findings are striking.
The NRA, Patrick shows, is less likely than the others to be identified by its proper name but much more likely to be tagged with some variant of ''lobby'' or ''special interest.'' The ACLU will typically be labeled a ''civil liberties group,'' ''abortion rights group,'' or ''leading liberal champion.'' Handgun Control Inc. is usually identified as a ''citizens' lobby,'' ''nonprofit organization,'' or ''public interest group.'' The NAACP is referred to as a ''national civil rights group,'' ''venerable civil rights organization,'' or ''the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization.''
But when the NRA is in the news, the tone and terminology are often very different.
''Semi-automatic caucus.'' ''Lobbying juggernaut.'' ''Powerful gun lobby.'' ''Gun organization.'' ''Radical gun lobby.'' ''The classic Washington superlobby.'' ''Arrogant lobby.'' ''The gun lobby consisting of everything from neo-Nazis to nature-loving hunters.'' ''Most feared lobby.'' ''The Beltway's loudest lobby.'' ''A rich and paranoid organization.''
The use of negative or positive labels was only one of 16 different categories Patrick devised for measuring bias in newspaper coverage of the NRA. Many of his yardsticks are shrewd; all are revealing.
Example: More than 27 percent of stories about the liberal interest groups - the NAACP, AARP, ACLU, and Handgun Control - were accompanied by photographs of the groups' officials or events. Only 6 percent of the NRA stories were similarly dressed up.
Example: When NRA officials were quoted, they were identified by their proper titles less than 20 percent of the time. For Handgun Control, by contrast, the proportion was 64 percent; for the NAACP, 73 percent. Thus Sarah Brady is the ''Handgun Control president,'' while Wayne LaPierre becomes merely an ''NRA lobbyist'' (he is the group's executive vice president).
Example: When information comes from the AARP, the papers use verbs like ''reported,'' ''indicated,'' ''concludes,'' ''documents.'' When the NAACP is quoted, the stories note that it ''spoke out,'' ''vowed,'' ''declared,'' ''announced.'' But when the NRA speaks, the papers often choose verbs that imply doubt: ''claims,'' ''asserts,'' ''likes to portray,'' ''contended,'' ''alleging.''
Patrick sifts his data with the statistical rigor one would expect of a Michigan PhD. But his bottom line is unambiguous: ''These data support a conclusion of systematic marginalization of the NRA.''
And, he might have added, of guns and gun owners in general.
On no other issue is there a wider gulf between mainstream America and the media. There are more than 225 million civilian firearms in the United States. Some 45 percent of US households own at least one gun. To tens of millions of Americans, guns mean safety and peace of mind; they know intuitively what statistics prove: gun ownership reduces crime.
Yet in the nation's eminent newsrooms, it is axiomatic that guns are nasty, that more guns mean more crime, and that those who defend the Second Amendment are ''gun nuts.'' No wonder the NRA gets such bad press. And no wonder so many gun owners have abandoned newspapers as their chief source of information.
And then there's TV.
A detailed new study by the Media Research Centerfinds that in the 24 months ending June 1999, the morning and evening news shows on the major networks aired an astonishing 653 stories dealing with gun policy. Of those, 393 clearly went beyond straight reporting into advocacy - and nearly 91 percent pressed an anti-gun point of view.
For instance, ABC's ''Good Morning America'' aired 93 segments on gun policy; 92 had a progun control slant. CNN's nightly show, ''The World Today,'' broadcast 98 soundbites urging more gun restrictions, but only 40 opposing them.
The MRC study (read it at www.mrc.org) assembles a remarkable array of gun-bashing rhetoric from TV talking heads. Juan Williams on Fox: ''I don't understand why we're piddling around. We should talk about getting rid of guns in this country.'' Geraldo Rivera on CNBC: ''How much longer are we gonna be wrapping in the flag of patriotism to justify 250 million guns out there?'' Roger Rosenblatt on PBS: ''If you took away the guns, and I mean really take away the guns, not what Congress is doing now, you would see that violent society diminish considerably.''
This bigotry against guns is irrational. It convinces millions of Americans that the media cannot be trusted. Someday the networks may figure out that in a land where almost one household in two owns a gun, demonizing gun owners makes no sense. But by then, who will be tuned in?
Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist. This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 1/17/2000. © Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
Bad news for the gun-control commissars. According to the Centers for Disease Control, gun deaths dropped 21% between 1993 and 1997 to the lowest level in more than 30 years. Firearm-related injuries fell 41%. The total number of fatalities dropped to 32,436 in 1997 (more than half of them suicides). The falling gun death rate correlates with the falling rate of violent crime.
Obituaries are describing the late Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island as a "moderate." Oh, really? In 1992 Chafee introduced legislation to completely outlaw the private possession of handguns. All Americans would have been ordered to turn over their handguns to the government. Anyone subsequently found with a handgun would have faced up to $5,000 in fines and five years in prison.
When Chafee introduced this legislation, he acknowledged there were about 66 million handgun owners. About one in four US households had one or more handguns. Almost none of these owners used their guns in any criminal activity. Yet Chafee would have made them turn in their guns or become instant felons, to be hunted down by a Gun Gestapo and punished with severe fines and lengthy imprisonment. Given that so many Americans passionately support their Second Amendment right to own handguns, one shudders to imagine the consequences of a government attempt at mass confiscation.
Furthermore, a large and impressive body of scholarly research - most notably that of John Lott of the University of Chicago - indicates that private firearm possession is a major crime deterrent. Thus Chafee's legislation would have left millions of Americans exposed to criminal predators, and would have unquestionably driven up the numbers of robberies, murders, and rapes nationwide.
This was police-state legislation, and it would have required a police state to enforce it. A person who could seriously propose such a thing might deservedly be called many names, but "moderate" is not one of them.
EVERYBODY KNOWS that guns are evil, right? That guns sneak out of the house at night, prowl the neighborhood looking for innocent victims, then shoot them dead before throwing themselves into a garbage can to evade capture by the police.
That may sound a bit farfetched to some people, but it's all true --- just ask any liberal.
Because guns, not criminals, are the real enemy, a lot of those folks have been fiercely agitated in recent years because gun ownership in America seems to be rising. They've tried their best to pass laws that would somehow reduce the number of firearms in circulation, because they knew that increasing numbers would inevitably result in increased deaths and injuries. After all, guns just can't help being bad.
Imagine the surprise, then, at news from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta revealing that deaths and injuries caused by guns have actually plunged in the past few years. In 1997, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 21 percent fewer killings and 41 percent fewer woundings than in 1993, when gun incidents reached their peak.
This is a statistical anomaly of the first order: Since guns kill people, and there are more guns, then there have to be more victims. There's simply no way to explain this startling departure from expectations --- unless one were to do something truly outrageous, like assuming that people and their motives have something to do with violence committed with guns, and even with other weapons.
Forgive this foray into fantasy, but just suppose for a moment that the problem was criminal behavior, rather than the inherent vileness of firearms themselves. You could almost make sense out of the CDC's findings. Crime of all kinds has been going down in recent years, get-tough sentencing laws in many states are keeping violent criminals behind bars for longer periods, a healthy economy has more people working and thus less prone to engage in unlawful and harmful activities. If it really was people who killed people, rather than guns themselves, then the statistics would seem perfectly logical.
But that's absurd, of course. That sort of thinking would lead to bizarre things such as proposals for tighter enforcement of laws against criminal use of guns, and harsher punishments for such use, which wouldn't do anything about the horrifying existence of guns in the hands of law-abiding people.
We don't know how liberals are going to rationalize these statistics, which so dangerously threaten one of their most deeply held beliefs, but we're confident they will. After all, it really isn't important whether people are killed by guns or not; their main goal is, and will remain, the effort to make guns as illegal as they are evil. Statistics, like other facts and like logic, are clearly irrelevant in that crusade.
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."
--Mafia informant Sammy "the Bull Gravano, on gun control.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--- Thomas Jefferson.
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."
--- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781 - 1785).
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
--- Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--- James Madison.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property....Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law abiding) deprived the use of them."
--- Thomas Paine.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
--- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
--- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
--- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184 - 188.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun…"
--- Patrick Henry.
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
--- Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787 - 1788).
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--- Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86 - 87.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."
--- John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms."
--- Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
--- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
--- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425 - 426.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
--- Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able - bodied males at least 17 years of age..."
--- Title 10, Section 331 of the U.S. Code.
"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
--- Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
--- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."
--- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--- George Washington.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--- Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America."
--- Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
--- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
"If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
--- Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detroit.
|
|
|  |
