The gun control nuts are loosing the gun control argument, and the chart above is one of the reasons (note that the chart is compiled from information from the Centers for Disease Control--it will be important as you read on). More guns has resulted in less crime. Consequently, the gun control nuts are getting desperate. In looking about the internet yesterday, I found several articles that hint at where the gun control nuts are heading next.
First, and foremost, is that they are taking a lesson from the global warming hysteria, and going to attempt to get "science" on their side. This has taken the argument that there is not enough research on gun violence. For instance, just from today, I saw the following articles:
- "Even As Guns Proliferate In The US, Official Data On Firearms Remain Scarce"--International Business Times. Topped by a photo of store where the San Bernadino shooters' friend purchased weapons for them, this article suggests that the only way to get useful information on gun crime is to create a database of firearms that have not been used in crimes (i.e., new gun purchases) and then follow the history of those firearms over time. Well, I did see something like that once...showing that assault rifles sold by the U.S. to Central American countries were winding up in the hands of drug cartels. So, let's do a preliminary study on what happens to the arms that the U.S. government sells or transfers to foreign entities and where they end up.
- "Why The Ban On Gun Violence Research Is A Public Health Issue"--Huffington Post. An article making essentially the same type of arguments as in the IBT article above.
- "Here's What We Know About The Contagion Effect Of Mass Shootings"--Huffington Post. A second article from the Huffington Post arguing that we need more "research" tracking gun usage and crime.
Second, in his op-ed entitled "Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'", Amitai Etzioni, a professor at George Washington University (one of the elite schools feeding the upper echelons of government), actually speaks openly of what the left wants:
Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.Third, we will continue to see ridiculous arguments and misstatements aimed at influencing the stupid and low information voters:
One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.
Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.
Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.
- In "Guns in the Old West," Barry Levinson actually argues (presumably with a straight face) that Hollywood Westerns where certain fictional towns were portrayed "no guns" signs accurately represent and interpret the Second Amendment. He writes:
I can't help but think of all those Westerns I have seen in the past. The stranger rides into town and that's when the trouble begins. He is carrying a gun. And the sheriff says, "didn't you see the sign coming into town, stranger? No guns allowed." ... In NONE of those films did the stranger ever say, "That's a violation of the second amendment, Sheriff."This was the old West. The West we idolize. The West when "a man was a man!" Or so we proclaim. That West had prostitution, gambling, drinking, and very bawdy behavior... and yet it didn't always allow guns in town. I guess this was before the Sheriff was aware of the second amendment. Or he noticed the sentence that mentioned, "a well regulated militia," and thought that meant that there should probably be limits to guns because of the word "regulated." Perhaps they didn't really understand the sentence because they weren't as schooled as the advocates today who demand no limitations on gun ownership. They do seem to draw the line just short of guided missiles. Although I don't know why, since missiles are referred to as arms -- hence the term "the arms race."
Perhaps Levinson will next suggest that Tom and Jerry cartoons accurately portrays the behavior of cats and mice?
In any event, Levinson apparently is ignorant that, at the time portrayed in the Westerns, the Supreme Court had not yet begun incorporating the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment to apply to the states. That is, at that time, a state was not bound by any of the Bill of Rights. He is also ignorant that writings from that time indicated that people did believe that people had an individual right to be armed. Lacking even a basic understanding of the Constitution or history, Levinson should rightly be ignored.
- In "Here's What Happens On Google After A Mass Shooting," Damon Beres notes that normally Google searches for "gun shop" outnumber searches for "gun control," but following a "mass shooting," the searches for "gun control" will briefly outnumber searches for "gun shop." Beres does not know what implications should be drawn from this, but that doesn't stop him from suggesting that the NRA "owns" politicians in Congress. I won't even pretend to understand what Beres believes to be the connection between the two points.