Constitution Crime Gun Rights Politics Terrorism

A Favor for Bad Guys: How Victim-Disarmament Policy Empowers Criminals, Racists, and Jihadists

“A firearm in the hands of a righteous defender, whether police officer or civilian, is a tool for goodness in the world.  A firearm in the hands of a criminal or madman a tool for evil.  Intentions matter.”  —Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabbinic Director, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

 

Presidential Lying

You have probably turned on the news at some point, only to hear President Obama reciting “facts” that are patently false.  He can do this, because the Democrat news/propaganda outlets can be counted on to report his words faithfully, without challenging their veracity.

A prime example of Mr. Obama’s mendacity is the following quote: “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”  This statement is simply untrue, based totally upon an ideology that would rather control people than protect people’s lives.  In reality, people are safer if they have arms at their disposal to defend themselves against beweaponed criminals.  This is not an ideological belief, but is borne out by facts.

 

England’s Gun Ban: A Death Sentence for the Law-Abiding

Like many other countries where victim-disarmament is official policy, England has seen its own criminal culture strengthened, since instituting its revocation of the civil right of citizens to defend themselves against criminals bearing arms.  Just prior to England’s 1997 victim-disarmament law, the annual death rate by gun in England was 2,636.  In 2012, fifteen years into their policy of victim-disarmament, the death rate by gun was up to 5,871 a year!  These are important numbers, but you will not see or hear them reported by Democrat propaganda media, such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, or the Washington Post, among others.

During the same 15-year timeframe in which England’s gun murders rose in number, the US saw its death rate by gun fall (as well as the rates of rape, robbery, and other kinds of violence).  The main difference between England and the US is that an increasing number of American states and municipalities have been making it easier for their citizens to protect themselves against gun-wielding bad guys.  (Criminals are funny that way; unlike law-abiding people, scofflaws just blatantly refuse to follow any gun restrictions, which is why Progressives who pass victim-disarmament laws are their natural allies.)

 

More Guns and Less Crime in Utah

guncrimeUtah is the state with the fewest gun restrictions, according to the Brady Campaign, and it possesses the distinction of having the lowest murder rate by gun—0.97 out of 100,000 citizens—while California, the state with the most gun restrictions, according to the Brady Campaign, has the highest murder rate by gun—with 3.25 gun murders per 100,000 citizens.  Curiously, even though Progressives know all of this, they immorally insist on policies of criminal empowerment and victim disarmament.

 

Bad News for Bad Guys: The Lone Star State Defends Innocent Life

Texas, which might bear mentioning because it is the second most populous state, just behind California (and perhaps most like California in terms of its urban profile, possessing such socially liberal population centers as Houston, San Antonio, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Austin), saw 699 total gun murders in 2011—just over half of California’s 1,220—and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000—which compares to California’s 3.25 gun murders per 100,000. Every time Texas has loosened its gun restrictions, empowering its citizens with more freedom, the murder rate has fallen as a result.

 

Comparing Chicago to Houston

There are some interesting contrasts between Chicago, Obama’s adopted hometown, and Houston.  The statistics being cited are from 2012, before the current court ruling making gun acquisition, from a legal standpoint, much easier in Illinois (although, in such a lawless cultural environment, nobody can tell what other roadblocks might be set in place to frustrate civil rights advocates).

Here are some demographic comparisons to keep in mind: 1) Chicago has 2.7 million people to Houston’s 2.2 million; 2) Chicago’s median income is over $38,000 per year, while Houston’s hovers around $37,000; 3) the African-American population in Chicago is 38%, while the African-American population in Houston is 24%; 4) the Hispanic population in Chicago is 29%, which compares to Houston’s Hispanic population of 44%; 5) Asians are 6% of Chicago and 6% of Houston; and 6) the European-American population in Chicago is 28%, while in Houston it is 26%.

With respect to 2012 statistics involving guns and crime, here are the facts: 1) Chicago had no concealed-carry gun law, but Houston did; 2) Chicago had zero gun stores, but Houston had 84 gun stores plus 1500 other legal places to buy guns; 3) Chicago had 806 homicides, and Houston had 207; and 4) Chicago had 28.4 homicides per 100,000, while Houston had only 9.6 homicides per 100,000.  The lack of defensive guns among Chicagoans gave murderers an undisputed advantage.  The presence of defensive guns among Houstonians made the work conditions for murderers significantly more difficult.

So, knowing that murderers will always access guns, no matter what government policy is, what is more moral?  Allowing people the freedom to defend themselves, or disarming the public and giving the advocates of murder and mayhem the upper hand?

 

Obama Plays the Race Card—Again!

obama-race-card1Referring to the recent murders in South Carolina, Obama has said, “The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives. You know, that casts a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on.  We’re not cured of it.  Racism we are not cured of, clearly.”  Obama seems to be implying that Americans have racist DNA and, therefore, cannot be trusted with guns.  Again, facts do not seem to matter to Obama.  If they did, perhaps the president would be promoting armed defense as a way to fight mass-murdering racists.  He might recall that Dr. King and the Freedom Riders carried guns for protection.

 

Guns, Not Anti-Racism, Saved Koreatown

If South Carolina’s past history of being a Jim Crow state were the real issue, then why did the L.A. Riots of 1992 happen in California—not a Jim Crow state by any stretch of the imagination?  And, in the midst of those riots, how was it that Korean-Americans successfully defended their area of town?  It was not because there was more love of Koreans in the hearts of the mostly-African-American rioters, due to a lack of racism.  It was due to their armed response from the rooftops of Koreatown!  It was unarmed L.A. neighborhoods that experienced the most gun violence.  Guns saved Koreatown of the slaughter of innocent life that took place in other areas.

 

Doing a Racist a Favor

The pastor of church under racist attack in South Carolina had banned guns in church.  A pastor may institute such a ban in South Carolina, but this particular pastor, by doing so, tragically served to do a favor for a racist shooter.  And state law only enabled the error.

 

Americans Bad, Jihadists Good

It is annoying to no end how President Obama takes one isolated incident of mass murder in America and uses it to smear all Americans as having racist DNA.  At the same time, Obama denies that the numerous incidents of jihadist violence that are continually occurring are, in any way, endemic to Islam.  During a time when ISIS is on the rise, Obama has opened the US border!  With ISIS encamped eight miles south of the Mexican border, Obama is doing his best to disarm Americans in the face of this enemy, which would make it much more difficult for Americans to defend innocent life against jihadists.

 

A Moral President Could Do Much Good

It is not difficult to imagine how different America could be, if Obama were a proponent of freedom.  If Obama would tell the truth about how states with more guns are safer than states with fewer guns, America could be freer of violence and crime than ever before, due to the influence he might exercise on decision-makers across the political spectrum.  And Obama could make the working conditions for terrorists within the US much more problematic.  It is sad that the president’s moral compass always seems to point in any direction other than true north.

 

An Armed Society Is a Polite Society

Let us stop making life hard for the victims and easy for the criminals.  It is time for all Americans to wake up and promote their rights under the Second Amendment.  The wicked will dismay if we do so, but every freedom-loving American who is endowed with common sense, a love for truth, and a will to defend innocent life, will be grateful, in the end, that freedom has been preserved.  An armed society is a polite society and, potentially, a society with more freedom and more safety than any other kind.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Paul Dowling

Paul Dowling

Paul Dowling is an American patriot whose mission in life is to educate and enlighten his fellow citizens about the correct principles for facilitating a life of freedom and a culture based upon the Golden Rule, as well as to do whatever is in his power to help protect his countrymen from their government.

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to friend