cloverleaf
Handloader
- Sep 10, 2006
- 4,330
- 926
This post and title was taken from another site I frequent. An interesting read, I thought. CL
You may have read this already. If not, it is a good read. If so, no harm in re-reading it.
The Liberal Mind Exposed
by John J. Marciano
jjm2000_1@yahoo.com
It was once said that the difference between a liberal and a conservative is that liberals focus on intent, while conservatives focus on results. For a liberal, it doesn’t matter that gun control works or not, the intent of saving babies is all that matters. A crime free society is achievable. We only need more gun control.
The State of Massachusetts is the test tube case for extremely strict gun laws. With the intent of curbing crime and violence, the State government has adopted some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. For instance, the state requires a permit, known as a "Firearm Identification Card," for the purchase of every kind of firearm, whether for personal protection or hunting:
“Identification cards are issued by the local police and may take up to 30 days to obtain while an applicant's background is checked. Even if a background check turns up no convictions for serious crimes, which would make it all but impossible for an applicant to get a card, the police have considerable discretion on whether to issue them.” (New York Times - Killings Occurred in State With Tough Gun Laws - December 27, 2000).
The recent Wakefield tragedy should give us pause to whether the result is effective or not. For instance, Michael McDermott's mere possession of the weapons he used in the killings was a crime. But the strict gun laws made it difficult for other office workers to legally own and virtually impossible to legally carry firearms for their own protection. They instead had to rely on 911 for safety.
The “right intent” is destroying peoples’ lives. Michael McDermott didn’t care about breaking the gun control laws. He didn’t apply for his Firearm Identification Card and wait thirty days for a background check. But the bureaucratic hoops that one would have to jump through might have dissuaded others in the office from obtaining a firearm, thereby preventing them from adequately defending themselves from an attacker like Mr. McDermott.
In much of the Northeast, civilians carrying firearms is nonexistent. The difficulty in obtaining a Civilian Carry Permit in Massachusetts rated the state a “D” by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.ccrkba.org). Only 175,000 people (Handgun Control, Inc.) out of a state population of 6,016,425 (U.S. Dept. of Labor) carry a handgun. Approximately 2% of the population can legally carry a handgun for self defense. New Jersey is even more abysmal in this regard. Only 4,300 people (HCI) out of a population of 7,747,750, legally carry a handgun. That is only 5/100ths of 1 percent. One person out of approximately 18,000 can legally carry a firearm in New Jersey. Incidentally, New Jersey also rated a D from the CCRKBA.
All the strict gun control does nothing to deter crime in these states. In New Jersey the murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 in 1998 was 4.0, 22.5 and 309, respectively. (The Disaster Center, Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports [http://www.disastercenter.com]). In Massachusetts, with its slightly more liberal carry laws shows the murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 was 2.0, 27.4, and 96.6 respectively. (The Disaster Center, 1998 figures) Contrast that to Vermont, which has a murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 of 1.5, 26.5, and 13.4, respectively. (The Disaster Center, 1997 figures) Vermont allows anyone, non resident or resident, to carry concealed or unconcealed without a permit. Pay attention to Vermont’s 13.4 per 100,000 robbery rate and contrast it to New Jersey’s 309 per 100,000 robbery rate. New Jersey’s robbery rate is twenty times higher than Vermont. Washington D.C. has outlawed handgun ownership within the city limits, yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the country.
But Liberals refuse to see the results of their legislation. For instance, “Scott Harshbarger, the former state attorney general [for Massachusetts] who pushed for more stringent state gun-control rules in the late 1990's” readily admits that “‘…even the toughest laws can't prevent every type of tragedy.’” (NYT ibid). But just because the strict laws are not providing the desired results, “It's not an excuse to stop trying,” and the right intent is there. Requiring Federal Firearms Licenses for Dealers doesn’t work? How about restricting “Assault Weapons” and high capacity magazines? Not working? Let’s register handguns too. Still no results? Let’s just ban everything.
Liberals refuse to look at the facts. Instead they believe that if the right intent is present, the results will not matter. Opportunistic politicians vigorously support this position because it transfers more power to them. That’s why it is very important that ordinary people examine the facts. The shining intent of gun control is shown easily on television; scenes of mass murders, blood, and twisted, lifeless children. The failed results of gun control are buried in numbers and statistics. The intent is presented in vibrant images; the results in cold, boring numbers.
Crime is a very complex problem in this country. I’m not trying to suggest that the only reason that Vermont has a lower crime rate than New Jersey is more prevalent gun ownership. However, it is important that the citizens of this country realize the failed results of gun control. The locations with the strictest gun control; New York, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C; have much more crime than places with large amounts of gun ownership. This fact must not be ignored. Ordinary people must not succumb to the failed results of policies and legislation that had the “right intent”. They must not give up their right to defend themselves by supporting freedom-destroying legislation because the “good intent” of saving lives and reducing crime is there. Americans must not be fooled by what the road to Hell is paved with.
New York – John J. Marciano
Author’s Note: This article may be reprinted in its entirety. A link to http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com should be displayed and notification to the author should be sent to jjm2000_1@yahoo.com. Special thanks is given to the CCRKBA.org website for its research into civilian carry statistics. CCRKBA used Handgun Controls own carry statistics and they were used here. A much more comprehensive treatise on the facts and statistics is More Guns, Less Crime by Professor John Lott.
You may have read this already. If not, it is a good read. If so, no harm in re-reading it.
The Liberal Mind Exposed
by John J. Marciano
jjm2000_1@yahoo.com
It was once said that the difference between a liberal and a conservative is that liberals focus on intent, while conservatives focus on results. For a liberal, it doesn’t matter that gun control works or not, the intent of saving babies is all that matters. A crime free society is achievable. We only need more gun control.
The State of Massachusetts is the test tube case for extremely strict gun laws. With the intent of curbing crime and violence, the State government has adopted some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. For instance, the state requires a permit, known as a "Firearm Identification Card," for the purchase of every kind of firearm, whether for personal protection or hunting:
“Identification cards are issued by the local police and may take up to 30 days to obtain while an applicant's background is checked. Even if a background check turns up no convictions for serious crimes, which would make it all but impossible for an applicant to get a card, the police have considerable discretion on whether to issue them.” (New York Times - Killings Occurred in State With Tough Gun Laws - December 27, 2000).
The recent Wakefield tragedy should give us pause to whether the result is effective or not. For instance, Michael McDermott's mere possession of the weapons he used in the killings was a crime. But the strict gun laws made it difficult for other office workers to legally own and virtually impossible to legally carry firearms for their own protection. They instead had to rely on 911 for safety.
The “right intent” is destroying peoples’ lives. Michael McDermott didn’t care about breaking the gun control laws. He didn’t apply for his Firearm Identification Card and wait thirty days for a background check. But the bureaucratic hoops that one would have to jump through might have dissuaded others in the office from obtaining a firearm, thereby preventing them from adequately defending themselves from an attacker like Mr. McDermott.
In much of the Northeast, civilians carrying firearms is nonexistent. The difficulty in obtaining a Civilian Carry Permit in Massachusetts rated the state a “D” by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.ccrkba.org). Only 175,000 people (Handgun Control, Inc.) out of a state population of 6,016,425 (U.S. Dept. of Labor) carry a handgun. Approximately 2% of the population can legally carry a handgun for self defense. New Jersey is even more abysmal in this regard. Only 4,300 people (HCI) out of a population of 7,747,750, legally carry a handgun. That is only 5/100ths of 1 percent. One person out of approximately 18,000 can legally carry a firearm in New Jersey. Incidentally, New Jersey also rated a D from the CCRKBA.
All the strict gun control does nothing to deter crime in these states. In New Jersey the murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 in 1998 was 4.0, 22.5 and 309, respectively. (The Disaster Center, Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports [http://www.disastercenter.com]). In Massachusetts, with its slightly more liberal carry laws shows the murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 was 2.0, 27.4, and 96.6 respectively. (The Disaster Center, 1998 figures) Contrast that to Vermont, which has a murder rate, forcible rape rate, and robbery rate per 100,000 of 1.5, 26.5, and 13.4, respectively. (The Disaster Center, 1997 figures) Vermont allows anyone, non resident or resident, to carry concealed or unconcealed without a permit. Pay attention to Vermont’s 13.4 per 100,000 robbery rate and contrast it to New Jersey’s 309 per 100,000 robbery rate. New Jersey’s robbery rate is twenty times higher than Vermont. Washington D.C. has outlawed handgun ownership within the city limits, yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the country.
But Liberals refuse to see the results of their legislation. For instance, “Scott Harshbarger, the former state attorney general [for Massachusetts] who pushed for more stringent state gun-control rules in the late 1990's” readily admits that “‘…even the toughest laws can't prevent every type of tragedy.’” (NYT ibid). But just because the strict laws are not providing the desired results, “It's not an excuse to stop trying,” and the right intent is there. Requiring Federal Firearms Licenses for Dealers doesn’t work? How about restricting “Assault Weapons” and high capacity magazines? Not working? Let’s register handguns too. Still no results? Let’s just ban everything.
Liberals refuse to look at the facts. Instead they believe that if the right intent is present, the results will not matter. Opportunistic politicians vigorously support this position because it transfers more power to them. That’s why it is very important that ordinary people examine the facts. The shining intent of gun control is shown easily on television; scenes of mass murders, blood, and twisted, lifeless children. The failed results of gun control are buried in numbers and statistics. The intent is presented in vibrant images; the results in cold, boring numbers.
Crime is a very complex problem in this country. I’m not trying to suggest that the only reason that Vermont has a lower crime rate than New Jersey is more prevalent gun ownership. However, it is important that the citizens of this country realize the failed results of gun control. The locations with the strictest gun control; New York, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C; have much more crime than places with large amounts of gun ownership. This fact must not be ignored. Ordinary people must not succumb to the failed results of policies and legislation that had the “right intent”. They must not give up their right to defend themselves by supporting freedom-destroying legislation because the “good intent” of saving lives and reducing crime is there. Americans must not be fooled by what the road to Hell is paved with.
New York – John J. Marciano
Author’s Note: This article may be reprinted in its entirety. A link to http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com should be displayed and notification to the author should be sent to jjm2000_1@yahoo.com. Special thanks is given to the CCRKBA.org website for its research into civilian carry statistics. CCRKBA used Handgun Controls own carry statistics and they were used here. A much more comprehensive treatise on the facts and statistics is More Guns, Less Crime by Professor John Lott.
