Anti-2A people all have one basic assumption that they charge forward with in their blind zealot pursuit of gun control. The problem is that it’s clear that they haven’t really though that assumption to even consider if they may be wrong.
What is that assumption? It’s that banning guns will decrease gun violence.
Anti-gunners are wrong about this assumption, and I’m not the only one who says that assumption is wrong. No, a retired police officer from an unexpected, pro-gun control place gives us the straight truth about the situation (hat tip to here for the lead). Chris D. Lewis was the “Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014.” That’s right, a retired police officer from gun control happy Canada gives us the truth. Lewis writes,
My short answer [to the question of if banning handguns will prevent violent crime] is NO. Not in the slightest.
Lewis continues:
I’ll admit that at one point several years ago, I whimsically supported banning handguns. I was tired of seeing innocent lives taken and reacted in the macro sense, thinking ridding society of handguns that are really only good for shooting “paper (targets) or people” would have an impact. But sober reflection combined with research, analysis, discussions with true law enforcement experts and many friends who are handgun aficionados, told me two things: 1. Banning handguns is an unreasonable expectation. There’s about a million lawfully owned handguns in Canada; and 2. Legal handgun owners are not the threat.
Now, Lewis is talking about Canada, but the reasoning is exactly the same for the situation in the U.S. It’s impractical to think that a ban on handguns in the U.S. (in which there are more guns than people) will cause all firearms to disappear. But more to the point is that legal gun owners aren’t and never have been the problem. And criminals don’t obey gun control laws anyway.
Again, from Lewis:
So, who will a provincial or municipal handgun ban impact? Not criminals. Not street gang members, bikers or the mob. It will impact the lawful owners that already obey Canadian legislation.
Criminals are already breaking many serious criminal laws when they possess hand guns and even moreso when they use them. These offences carry potential sentences that may see them incarcerated for years – as long as members of the judiciary don’t treat the offences lightly and have dangerous criminals beat the investigating officers back out onto the streets of their cities.
How often have we read media reports where criminals arrested for violent crime were out on bail when they committed further violent crimes, only to be released on bail yet again?
Lewis finishes his article by saying that getting tough on criminals is the only solution to gun violence, and Lewis is right. Banning legal gun ownership doesn’t stop criminals, and criminals are the ones committing gun crimes, including violent crime. This means that gun control legislation only takes guns from the people who were never the problem in the first place.
It makes you wonder if anti-2A politicians are trying to make Americans safer or just trying to make Americans defenseless.
Sigh, I’ve been saying for years (decades?) that if you start with a faulty premise you WILL reach a faulty conclusion. In this case the faulty premise is the totally incorrect term ‘gun violence’ – There Is No Such Thing. Period. Violence is an act and since guns are inanimate objects they cannot commit such acts.
Violent acts are committed by ‘people’ the use of a gun – or any other tool – is only the contributing factor to how that violent act turns out. Antis seem to be solely ‘interested’ when a victim is harmed/killed by an evil gun but if any other tool is used, their attitude seems to be ‘meh’. Apparently they haven’t figured out yet that a person is just as dead if the are killed by some other method than with a gun. Ya just can’t make up that level of dis ingenuousness..
You are absolutely right and the lawmakers know it. In fact, a column in an old Cleveland Newspaper carried a column stating that “The greatest threat to freedom comes not from the lawbreaker but rather from the lawmaker.” That makes perfect sense – especially in the present day where and when the sinister leftists (yes I repeat myself; “sinister” is Latin for “left”) are bent on turning us into a communist dictatorship and are always inventing excuses to bring that about. Also, the leftists/Dems actually ***want*** guns but only for themselves so that they can establish “Power OVER the People” by being the only ones armed.
He makes 2 good points gun laws do not IMPACT THE CRIMINALS. NOT STREET GANG MEMBERS, BIKERS OR THE MOB …
2. THESE OFFENCES CARRY POTENTIAL SENTENCES THAT MAY SEE THEM INCARCERATED FOR YEARS – AS LONG AS MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY DON’T TREAT THE OFFENCES LIGHTLY we need longer mandatory sentence’s that no judge can interfere with …
Remember Australia.
That’s for sure Now look at how they now throw people – including healthy ones – into concentration camps. With only one meal per day. On suspicion of having COVID but nobody checks.
There’s one other reason to fear these ‘gun-grabber’ types: they insist on some sort of ‘gun registry’! Fact: during the insanity of WW2, the Nazis, upon invading the Netherlands, went to local police stations, obtained the registries of all gun owners! The Netherlands already HAD gun-registries, and all the dutiful owners did register their arms. All the Nazis need do was go door-to-door, and demand those arms! Those who refused were summarily SHOT! The Netherlanders suffered horribly during this occupation, by harsh rules, and by the Nazis stealing foods stored by the inhabitants, so many starved! With no arms, they were unable to resist one iota!
According to the US government’s own numbers, less than a third of Americans legally own firearms. Just because there are more guns in this country than people does not mean everyone owns one. I’m in my 70s, and have never purchased a firearm in my life. I had to learn how to use them at an early age, and then again during the Vietnam Conflict, but never had the need to own one. I think our government has the right to know who could be legally permitted to own firearms, but I don’t think they should have the right to know who owns what firearms. They could register the people, but not the weapons. That would work. Crimes involving firearms happen as or more often in areas with strict gun controls as they do in areas more lax, but our government officials seem to be more than willing to ignore those facts.
I am in total agreement. No ONE knows exactly how many are out there.
Look to Chicago. Of course there is that lesbian eco-opthamic buffoon mayor. A bi-pedal joke AND UGLY! Stupid AND UGLY
What does Adolph, Mao , Ho , Hugo , Papa Doc , Benito , and Fidel all have in common?
1] Ban all private ownership of guns
2] Take over the Radio/T.V. , Newspaper , and other free speech avenues
3] Ban private companies. Everything OWNED by the Government
4]Ban all Religious beliefs/churches/synagogues etc The Government is god.
5] ban all travel , speech,
And there you have the common thread of a dictatorship .
Are you listening Democrats? Or , are you in agreement?
Liberals are using emotional arguments to backup their demands for “gun control”. They also claim that conservatives do NOT rely on the “facts”, the SCIENCE, when conservatives do not agree with the liberal spin on ANYTHING.
So , it’s somewhat confusing to me as to which side of the coin the liberals actually represent:. The logical side or the emotional side.. I’m starting to think that the liberals are as least as confused as I am, perhaps quite a bit MORE.
And there is the REAL problem in a nutshell..the Judiciary, release before trial so they can offend again, and light sentences..many totally ludicrous in their lightmess, and unfsir to the victimd.
Comments are closed.