The crazed brazen daylight murders of two news professionals in Virginia recently by a psychopathic black man bent on vengeance demonstrates the utter futility and deceitful fantasy of so-called “gun control.”
It highlights the vile politicians and pundits who call for more of it, while they dance in the blood of dead victims. The black church murders by a secreted parishioner, the jihad assault on a U.S. military recruiting station, the attack on a Texas art exhibit, maniacs committing atrocities at schools—all breathlessly promoted by the so-called “news” media—point to the same thing. “Officials” desperately want to disarm the people who didn’t do anything, but they won’t say that.
The person currently in the White House, candidates for that office on a debate stage, victimhood promoters of the anti-gun-rights cabal and other politicians—immediately on the heels of foul deeds—universally call now for “universal” background check “gun-control” laws, again.
Conscious people understand these are worthless efforts that only encumber innocent people. Not a single mass-promoted atrocity would be stopped by the preferred solution voiced by the left.
They have promoted the same thing since their ultimate non-solution—the Brady law. They did it after every mass murderer acted out, and was shot dead—the only proven way to stop mass murderers. The gun controllers adamantly resist that approach, preferring make-believe gun-free zones and disarming the victims, which only enables murderers of every stripe.
Many of the murderers went through the very FBI-certified background checks we already have, which presidential-democrat candidates called for from the debate stage. Liberals want more of the same, proving once again that liberalism is a mental disorder. More background checks will not fix this.
New background checks to ban perfectly legal private sales between honest people will do nothing but infringe upon the innocent. Calling an existing freedom a loophole doesn’t make it an evil in need of a remedy. Sales between criminals are already totally illegal. Making it more illegal is preposterous and does nothing for enforcement, which is where the vacuum is.
Calling an existing freedom a loophole doesn’t make it an evil in need of a remedy.
The question reporters should be asking—but aren’t—is this: Have the background checks stopped any criminals from arming themselves? We know regular people have been denied their constitutional right to arms by the system, without trials, due process, confronting witnesses, representation, even hearing the charges against them. Your rights get denied, and you’re not told why.
Before blindly promoting cries for more checks, reporters need to ask: So why aren’t the denied people arrested? Isn’t it a crime to buy, or try to buy a gun, if you’re prohibited? Of course it is.
The difficulty is that the system is not that good. It’s barely good enough to deny your rights, and nowhere near good enough to dispatch police, make arrests, build solid cases, bring people to trial and get convictions (even though they’ve got customers on paper, signed, sealed and delivered).
Why? Because so many people stopped are guilty of nothing. And wannabe murderers with clean records just go shopping. Or those with records shop elsewhere. Or hire friends to do it for them, or “just ask their coke whores,” a police lieutenant once told me about that common straw-buyer scheme.
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, most of the denials are false positives. The numbers back that up. It’s what happens when people lose their rights without a trial, lawyers, and ability to hear the charges and defend themselves. The ACLU prides itself upon defenses against that, where are they? The FBI brought a mere 44 cases in 2010, and managed only 13 convictions out of 76,000 supposedly legal rights-denials. What a scam.
You haven’t seen this on the “news” channels, have you? They’re all busy showing the public (and potential copy cats) the smiling faces of murderers. They ran endless loops of that black reporter’s few broadcasts after his stunt (he was a “news” reporter, so his black life mattered). They still show murderers from years ago, often with highlighting and halos and multiple imaging in the background. It’s disgraceful.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (jpfo.org) has a campaign called the Don’t Inspire Evil Initiative (the DIE Initiative), which calls upon news organizations to limit the glorification of spree murderers by restricting superfluous use of the villains’ images. It hasn’t gained much traction yet, but some law enforcement officials are catching on. Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin gained celebrity status for refusing to name the villain in a crime he had to deal with, while “news” media were scrambling to find images of the dirtbag, now dead.
Video media especially tend to show those revolting images scores of times, or just leave it up during broadcasts, which is morally and journalistically reprehensible—unless you’re trying to encourage copy-cat behavior. Copy-cats are valuable if you want repeated acts, which build political capital to advance the anti-gun-rights agenda. The advocates stand ready on a moment’s notice, not by coincidence. There are no ombudsmen any longer to read them the riot act, and they have lost any sense of a moral compass.
If total disarmament is their ultimate goal (everyone watching suspects it is), and knowing background checks are a worthless subterfuge, then just get started—go for gun confiscations already!
And they have. By calling for Australian-style gun control from the presidential debate stage, democrats are out of the closet and openly seeking gun bans. The background checks have nothing to do with anything. This comes down to the harbinger of freedom in America—an armed Republic.
If I’m wrong and democrats do want crime control (distinct from “gun control”), drop the pretense about checks and get law enforcement out there to start arresting those committing crimes in our urban “gun free zones” that are getting nearly 6,000 people killed per year. That would work.
Disarm the gangs and hardened criminals. Where is the reporting on them—instead of the hyperbole and whitewash about two reporters and murderers of yesteryear? Are we to conclude that certain lives don’t matter, but “news” reporters count for more, because they can be used to promote the phony “gun control” schemes that our own eyes tell us do not work?
And here’s the big plus: We’d all support “common-sense” gun confiscations. But only if it’s bad guys first. Unfortunately, that’s not the leftist plan.
—
Alan Korwin is the author of 14 books, 10 of them on gun law. His book After You Shoot examines ways to lower your risks after a self-defense shooting. He has been invited twice to observe oral argument in gun cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Reach him at GunLaws.com, where he is the publisher of Bloomfield Press.
