Jim Avila: “But the president’s hometown, a place where I worked for nearly 30 years, is, in fact, often used as a — evidence against gun control because of the — very strict gun control laws.
Is the president frustrated by the fact that people can go outside the city limits and buy guns? Does he want to do and will he still try to do something about that before he leaves office?”
Earnest “As you point out, Jim, I think the city of Chicago is actually a good illustration for why allowing local jurisdictions to put in place these gun safety laws doesn’t work. Because it’s too easy for those with bad intentions to just cross the city line or cross the county line to go and make a handgun purchase that they are prevented from making in some other jurisdictions.
"Often somebody who is seeking to evade gun laws like that is somebody that probably shouldn’t have a gun in the first place. This is somebody with a criminal record, somebody who may be the subject of restraining order, or maybe even somebody with a mental problem.
Chicago ends up being a pretty good illustration for why those kind of national laws are important to the safety of the communities all across the country.”
One again folks, Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
The Supreme Court pretty definitively ruled on the issue of gun control in Heller v. D.C. This issue is still under discussion because liberals refuse to accept the preeminence of the ruling.
It's going to take a series of reinforcing Supreme Court decisions to convince activists and politicians that they are prohibited from removing a fundamental right from citizens.
In 1994, the Assault Weapons ban passed under President Bill Clinton. That piece of legislation, now sunsetted into the history books and having had no discernible effect on crime even when active, was one of the big reasons the Democrats got their derrieres handed to them in the 1994 mid-term elections.
Democrats past protestations about not wanting to take our guns is certainly accepted and excused by their liberal acolytes, apologists and worshipers. They recognize that their pols need to tell lies in order to get past the unbelievers' obstructionism.
There are over 350 million guns in the country. While every new firearm sale and every transfer through a licensed dealer requires record keeping, transfers between individuals do not. So, apart from those jurisdictions that require registration, there's no way the government could effect an effective confiscation program without full compliance by the public.
Even if only one gun owner in 10 held back, there would still be millions upon millions of firearms in the hands of the public, and I'd feel safe in speculating that more than 1 owner in 10 might feel reluctant to hand 'em over.
NY State's attempt to get guns registered seems to have about a 5% compliance rate. Connecticut's compliance rate is in the low teens.
The liberal gun grabbers can dream, but their more practical counterparts (including Hillary's strategists and "walk-back-ers") know that it's a sure loser of an issue. Even should Hillary win the White House, I doubt she'd attempt a confiscation.
The eternally un-addressed or under-addressed observation - if the crime in places with strict gun laws is driven by people smuggling guns in from places with "lax" gun restrictions - why isn't crime higher in those lax places?
Why would criminals go through the trouble and risk of all that travel when they could simply "one-stop-shop" i.e. commit their crimes where they buy the guns. Might it be that they just might be aware that others in that "lax" area might have guns as well?
Of course, the trends support a robust concept of armed self-defense. In the past couple decades, 40 states have passed right-to-carry laws. Many to most have seen crime decreases, and not one has seen an increase.
But, gun control is one of those topics where liberal orthodoxy and their version of "common sense" trumps empirical data and history. The gun-banners "know" that allowing greater access to guns is certain to create crime, to turn the law-abiding into macho vigilantes, to prompt "old-west" style shootouts, and to greatly spike the number of people killed by their own guns. They "know" and argue these points by claiming that they're obvious - forget the facts or the statistics (which they dismiss either by attacking the source, declaring without evidence that they've all been fudged, or declaring (again, without evidence) that they *could* just as easily find stats that support their positions).
This reminds me of an old gag from college math and science classes - you start solving the problem, then write the answer and claim that it's "intuitively obvious." Too bad professors don't give credit for "intuitively obvious."
The problem with all the gun control laws and statistics is that there's really no null hypothesis. If guns were banned in total, 100% of the crimes would be committed by illegal gun owners. If there were no gun control laws, 100% of the crimes would be committed by legal gun owners.
Human behavior has far more to do with it than anything else. If a criminal seeks to accomplish something, he's going to do it if motivated enough. However, guns can deter a spontaneous event, I believe.
Long story short, guns in the hands of the responsible will either do no harm or possibly help. Guns (or anything else for that matter) in the hands of the irresponsible and criminal element will do no good or do harm.
To me, that is the simple truth about gun control. It's government trying to fix a problem, except the problem is a symptom and not the source of the problem to start with.
Why doesn't anyone ask Earnest why they always wait to use those guns until they get back to Chicago? Wouldn't it be more logical to use your gun where you bought it instead of risking being caught transporting guns across state lines? Could it be that criminals are no longer afraid of the punishment that the Liberal justice system in Chicago, and Liberal states in general, mete out? They know they won't be punished to the fullest extent of existing law so they are willing to take the chance.
ReplyDelete