Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Gun control is fine except for not working
Jewish World Review


Whenever there is a shooting, liberals have an answer that is not an answer, namely the charade of more gun control. Fine, try it, and maybe some voodoo along the way, but it doesn't work very well, there are better alternatives, and what's truly absurd in this debate is the demeaning expression "gun nuts."

What about "gun control nuts?"

What about people who seem to think murders will go down if fewer guns are sold even though a major crime drop starting in the 1990s was accompanied by a huge increase in the number of guns?

What about people apparently not knowing that we have 300 million guns in this country and getting hold of one will continue to be easy short of mass confiscation that will not and should not happen? Criminals, by the way, mostly get their guns from such means as the black market or a family gift, not through store purchases.

What about people who don't get it that President Barack Obama's calls for gun control made him the biggest gun salesman in American history? Gun sales set records in the Obama years largely because of the fear he might make their purchase virtually impossible. Not a single law he wanted would have shrunk gun sales by a fraction as much as his rhetoric increased them.

What about the fact that a British ban on handguns saw k*****gs increase for the next five years until more cops were finally put on the beat?

What about the fact that back in the days when it had a complete gun ban, Russia had four times as many murders as we had? In that case, does culture have more to do with gun violence than anything, just as culture probably accounts for us having more k*****gs than the Europeans?

The late, great social scientist James Q. Wilson thought so.

What about the fact that so-called assault rifles are not assault weapons and that the real ones are already banned? The military says an assault weapon is one that can be automatic -- press the trigger and the gun keeps shooting until you let up. The rifles often called assault weapons because they look like them are semiautomatic -- you have to keep pulling the trigger.

By the way, handguns are the first weapon of choice in crimes and mass shootings, and while there are mass shooters who favor the automatic lookalikes, they would still k**l without them.

In fact, FBI numbers show knives are used to k**l five times more people than all rifles put together and that fists and feet do the deed more than knives.

Finally, what about a 2013 study of studies by the Centers for Disease Control? It failed to find evidence that gun control laws worked but did find evidence for something else: People rescue themselves from crimes on a regular basis with guns, and guns work better than any other safety technique.

I myself do not object to more work on ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane if Second Amendment limits are observed. Despite arguments to the contrary, the founders did believe gun possession was an individual right, m*****a or no m*****a.

It is also the case that the National Rifle Association does not have lobbying heft because it gets big dough from gun manufacturers but because it represents millions of gun owners who happen to v**e.

The recent shooting of a congressman should cause consternation, but the best weapon against misuse of guns is cops with guns plus wise strategies and tactics like the kind that have been used in New York City. It led other big cities in a major way in reducing k*****gs and incarceration through deterrence.

To wish for more gun control over that approach is to wish for more blood in the streets.

Jay Ambrose
(TNS)



Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

To me, gun control is being able to hit your intended target.

I disagree with the "m*****a or no m*****a" ownership. It's clearly stated in the second amendment, which starts, "In order to maintain a well regulated m*****a...".
--Bob

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Only works for law abiding people. Did you expect anything else

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

It's clearly stated in the second amendment, which starts, "In order to maintain a well regulated m*****a...".
That's clearly not what it says.
It says: A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

.

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Gotta wonder how much a 36+" M-Lok handguard would cost...

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

No where does it say you must be a m*****a member to retain the right guaranteed in the 2nd, just as it doesn't mandate ownership of arms to participate as a member of the m*****a. It is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Requirements.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

No grenade launcher?

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Congress has limited the funds to enforce the existing gun laws for decades. The gun lobby, which consists of manufacturers for the most part, has systematically created both an environment of fear in the population at large and backed politicians who are willing to "look the other way" when it comes to requests from the ATF for funding.

The gun manufacturers have this country over a barrel...or a double barrel to be more accurate.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

AND, we also know that the past administration were gun dealers to the Mexican criminal gangs, eh ?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Criminals may not, for the most part, by their guns in stores but I would think that most guns in the hands of criminals were bought from stores, just not by the criminals who currently posses them. I'm not pushing a solution, I don't claim to have one, but being willing to talk about it couldn't do any harm.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Turns out the Bush administration had a “gun walking” program ... just like “Fast and Furious,” let guns “walk” to Mexico

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Yes, but mostly no.
Operation Wide Receiver was done under Bush, but it had several differences from Fast and Furious.
Wide Receiver coordinated with the Mexican government, Fast and Furious didn't. Under Obama, the gun walking program simply allowed the guns to walk into Mexico, without telling the Mexican government.
Wide Receiver put tracking devices into the guns, so we and the Mexican government knew where the guns went after they crossed the border; Fast and Furious had no tracking devices, so once the guns left the shop, no one in charge knew where they went. When the tracking devices were discovered (which was always a near certainty), Wide Receiver was shut down.
Wide Receiver, in order to implant the devices, was more orderly in which guns were sold to who (whom?), while Fast and Furious had far less control over who bought the guns (first come, first served).
IOW, Fast and Furious, while presented as a "sting" operation, actually netted very few straw buyers, because there was no way to gather any evidence after the guns were sold. Knowing which guns were sold to who says nothing about where they ended up. The Mexican government was not consulted, nor was it told the guns were even being sold with the intent to "track" them into Mexico (which they weren't).