Gun owners nationwide have grown weary of being made the scapegoats for crimes committed by career thugs, so it is understandable why resistance to new gun control measures has grown over the years.
Editorials in typically anti-gun metropolitan newspapers invariably call for stricter controls on law-abiding citizens, perhaps because they have yet to figure out how to hold the real criminals responsible. So, such editorials transfer the “guilt” to the inanimate objects used by these outlaws, erroneously believing that by placing ever-increasing restrictions on firearms and their lawful owners, this will somehow strike a blow against violent crime.
This is where the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” runs into problems by the bushel. Founded by billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, with the support of perennial anti-gun colleagues including Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, this group bases its very existence on a campaign against something which fundamentally does not exist.
Had they named their group “Mayors Against the Illegal use of Guns,” they might have gained a bit more traction in the firearms community. No law-abiding gun owner endorses the criminal misuse of firearms. There is a well-grounded suspicion that this mayors’ group views all guns to be illegal, especially those carried concealed by honest citizens who exercise their right to bear arms merely as a preventive measure against being victimized by the very criminals we all want behind bars.
But Bloomberg and his colleagues don’t get it. Nickels would – if he had the authority, which he does not – ban legally-carried handguns on all city property in Seattle.
I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.
Barack Obama likely would, if he had the authority, ban legal concealed carry across the United States. On the campaign trail early in 2008, Obama made clear his feelings about concealed carry, to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. It got a quick reaction from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
None of these people have yet defined what an “illegal gun” is. If one applies the New York standard, it would probably be a firearm owned and carried by any average citizen, who cannot get a permit. Apply the Chicago standard, and it means any handgun, period (one reason Chicago is being sued by the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association and National Rifle Association).
Anti gun lobbying groups argue that more concealed carry will result in more law enforcement deaths, but statistics from 2008 prove that to be false. Officer deaths from gunfire are actually down, while carry permit numbers are up. Across the United States, millions of citizens are legally armed, and they aren’t hurting anybody.
Obama, Bloomberg. Menino, Nickels and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and their anti-gun colleagues have a major hurdle. American citizens disagree with their campaign of disarmament. In state after state, data indicates that applications for concealed carry permits and licenses is on an increase. In Georgia, for example, gun permit applications are up nearly 80%, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Ditto in Florida, where the spike is above 80% from the same time last year.
Gun sales have surged since Obama was elected in November, and it is rather ironic that in a nation where the new administration is bailing out industries left and right, firearms and ammunition manufacturers are enjoying record sales.
Americans are looking ahead to a grim period of rising unemployment and economic instability. They see shrinking law enforcement budgets, increases in crime, and they have quickly figured out that this is not the time for gun control hysteria.
My colleague John Longnecker notes that the late, great Paul Harvey saw the nonsense of gun control years ago. Mr. Harvey’s voice has been stilled, but the wisdom he imparted is as applicable today as it was when he discussed the issue some years ago.
Paul Harvey was a newsman who dealt in fact, while Mayors Against Illegal Guns seems to be promoting a fantasy.
For more info: Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Comments
They do not "erroneously" hold those beliefs. In fact, except for the few useful idiots, they don't hold those beliefs at all. They just claim they do. Then with great melodramatic shows of bereft and false emotion they pretend to give a damn about the victims of crime. They do not. They care about control of the law-abiding free man. Once they attain that goal, if they ever do, the career criminals that have been permitted almost free rein will be handled and neutralized very quickly. After all, they will no longer be needed to scare the sheep into the abbatoir.
No erroneous to it. Just evil.
If gun owners are weary of being made scapegoats for crimes committed with guns, they should be on the front line of efforts to keep guns away from criminals. While it may be true that some criminals will always get guns it is far from true that all criminals will always get guns. Much can be done to stop criminals from getting guns - starting with universal background checks. Every gun sale should be subject to a Brady background check. Period. How can you say you are trying to keep guns away from criminals when you have a system in 32 states where guns can be sold with no background checks run and no records kept. Until gun owners start caring about how and where criminals are getting their guns they will continue to, deservedly, be made scapegoats for criminal gun use.
Rich, get your facts right, The NRA supported the instant check system and it is presently mandatory for federally licensed firearms dealers, there is not a single state in the United States that a firearm can be sold without a back ground check, even at gun shows. the only way a person can get a firearm without a background check is through an illegal "Straw Man" transaction at a dealer, a firearms theft, or an individual sale. Lies and misinformation abound in this and any other controversy, we may have differing opinions, but we all should do everything in our power to correct misinformation regardless of our opinion
'Mayors Against Illegal Guns'
How many felons can we count amongst their esteemed ranks? Bloomberg violated federal laws to conduct his own campaign across state lines to conduct straw purchases. Daley is the most corrupt politician in the country and Menino is either incompetant corrupt or both. The list goes on.
They really aren't interested in just 'illegal' guns. They want them all. Their actions prove it.
Rich, I am one gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter who absolutely doesn't care if we keep guns from criminals. Not even a little bit.
There are several reasons for this. One is that there is no way to do it without violating the rights of every, every other citzen, yeah the innocent law abiding peaceable citizen must be violated before such a plan has a chance, miniscule though that chance may be. No benefit is worth the surrender of the liberty or its tools. By the way, England did just that. It has worked exactly opposite their predictions, the criminals are still armed and their crime rate rise has made them the most violent first world nation in the world.
Another is that if a convicted felon has served ALL his time, inside, parole, probation, supervision whatever and is no longer deemed requiring of a keeper, he should be restored to full citizenship, or he shouldn't be released if he can't be trusted without a keeper. Further, his life is worthy of defense as is that of his family. Else keep him in prison. Atleast that way his wife and children do not have to choose between the possibility of losing their lives because he is in the house and is now fair unarmed game to any still practicing criminal.
And another is simply that criminals are not interested in fair fights. It is that simple. Even though they may be armed and most probably are, they will do what it takes to find a victim who isn't. Eliminate that victim pool and the criminals' guns do not give him the edge he needs to pursue his career. That has been proven. We don't often see cops mugged or police stations being robbed, well except for the property rooms, but the cops are doing that.
So no, I do not see the efficacy of or the benefits of passing laws that harm innocents knowing they will be ignored by the lawless.
Gun control is about guns. It's about control.
last line should read "Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control
John - Please define an individual sale. It's a sale, between two people, that does not involve a firearms dealer. In 32 states there is no requirement that such a sale involve any record keeping nor any background check. Most of those states also allow for private sales to be advertised in newspapers, swap guides, etc. It doesn't take much of a criminal mind to get a gun through a sale like that. And in many states private sellers can set up a table at a gun show and all of their sales will be without background checks - that is what the gun show loophole is all about.
Rich: Please tell us how a law requiring all private sales to make and pass a background check will keep two felons (who are already breaking the law by possessing or attempting to obtain a firearm) from meeting in a back alley and engaging in the sale of a firearm?
Such a law will do nothing to impede criminal possession of firearms, yet will do a great deal to impede private firearms transactions between peaceful private citizens. The price is too high for too little benefit.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!