Gun control laws cost lives

“Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.” — Will Rogers

Down in Concord, the big news last month, i.e. February 12, was the defeat of yet another gun control bill. The NH House killed HB 1589 by the overwhelming vote of 242 – 118. The battle is over, but could always reappear.

How would you have voted? Do you think we should require a background check for every gun buyer except for criminals? Okay, that isn’t exactly what the bill said but that would have been its effect. Common sense tells you that criminals would not have obeyed this new law any more than they obey existing laws.

Some months ago I came upon some people holding signs for “universal background checks”. I asked one of them, “How are you going to get the criminals to submit to a check?” His answer was, “We probably won’t. So what?” His side apparently wants to do background checks on all the law-abiding people who would pass a background check, but not do checks on any of the criminals who would fail a check.

Supporters admit that the bill would have had no affect on criminals, and they admitted at a hearing that it would not have stopped the Newtown tragedy or any of the other terrible shootings. But what if the bill could save just one life? Sadly, all such bills are more likely to cost a life than save a life.

One simple fact that the gun controllers don’t understand is that guns are used in America far more to STOP crime than to cause crime.  A wheel-chair bound grandfather uses his gun to stop an armed robbery in a restaurant. A mother saves herself and her two kids by shooting a home invader. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of episodes every year where a law-abiding citizen stops a crime, usually without even firing a shot.

Gun haters often say that guns are designed for one thing – to kill people. But that is nonsense. By most estimates, there are about 300 million guns in America. 299.99 million of those guns never killed anyone. Did they not work as designed? Or could it be that their owners never had any intentions of killing anyone?

No, guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed to DEFEND against people who would kill or rob or rape others. Throughout history there have been thugs who used knives, baseball bats, or simply their fists to victimize the weaker, the aged, the infirm, the women. Very few of us are martial-arts experts able to defend ourselves without a weapon. Firearms make it possible for a little old woman to defend herself against a big strong man.

The fastest-growing group of gun owners is women. They are buying guns to defend themselves and their families. Many are carrying their guns concealed. That gives thugs something to think about. Criminals are lazy; they go where the pickings are easy. If they think a woman might be carrying a gun, they will go looking for easier prey.

There is a photo going ’round the web of a woman shooting an assault rifle. The caption says, “You are not for women’s rights when you want to strip them of their right of self-defense.”

The right of self-defense is the most fundamental of all rights. Every living creature has the right of self-defense – not just defend self, but defend family and community. Just picture a mother bear defending her cubs. A bear has natural built-in weapons but a human mother needs artificial weapons to defend her children.

For self-defense, a firearm is the most useful tool yet invented. Just showing a gun can scare a criminal away. Nothing else can do that, not a Taser, not pepper spray, not a knife, definitely not calling 911. If a criminal continues to threaten, a gun can stop him before he can hurt or kill the victim. Virtually every would-be victim is capable of using a gun. It does not require special strength, agility, or training.

Guns have been called the great equalizer because even the weak, infirm, or untrained can be the equal of the criminal. Without guns the weak are at the mercy of the strong, the ordinary person at the mercy of an attacker who is well trained in fighting or knife work.

In his excellent “Opinion on Gun Control”, Larry Correia reports that “The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5.” Armed civilians save lives. The other side tries to dispute that fact by defining mass shootings as only those shootings in which 4 or more people are killed. They throw away the shootings that would have killed dozens or even hundreds but an armed citizen stopped the criminal early.

The many gun control laws have no effect on the criminals. But for law-abiding citizens, these laws cost time and money. In effect, they tilt the balance in favor of the criminal. One or two victims won’t have guns. That is why these misguided laws are more likely to COST lives than save lives.

War on the middle class

Victor Davis Hanson suggests that the middle class is hardest hit on many political issues:

  • ObamaCare
  • student loans
  • immigration
  • gun control
  • energy policy
  • the Fed’s quantitative easing

Hanson writes (my emphasis):

On almost every left-right issue that divides Democrats and Republicans — as well as Republicans themselves — there is a neglected populist constituency.

The result is that populist politics are largely caricatured as Tea Party extremism — and a voice for the middle class is largely absent.

The problem with ObamaCare is that its well-connected and influential supporters — pet businesses, unions and congressional insiders — have already won exemption from it.

The rich will always have their concierge doctors and Cadillac health plans. The poor can usually find low-cost care through Medicaid, federal clinics and emergency rooms.

In contrast, those who have lost their preferred individual plans, or will pay higher premiums and deductibles, are largely members of the self-employed middle class. They are too poor to have their own exclusive health care coverage but too wealthy for most government subsidies. So far, ObamaCare is falling hardest on the middle class.

Consider the trillion-dollar student loan mess. Millions of young people do not qualify for grants predicated on either income levels, ancestry or both. Nor are their parents wealthy enough to pay their tuition or room-and-board costs. The result is that the middle class — parents and students alike — has accrued a staggering level of student loan debt.

Illegal immigration also largely comes at the expense of the middle class. The supporters of amnesty tend to be poor foreign nationals who desire amnesty. Corporate employers and the elites of the identity-politics industry do not care under what legal circumstances foreign nationals enter the United States.

Lost in the debate over “comprehensive immigration reform” are citizen entry-level job seekers of all different races who cannot leverage employers for higher wages when millions of foreign nationals, residing illegally in the U.S., will work for less money. …

Middle-class taxpayers are most responsible for providing parity in subsidized housing, legal costs, health care and education for those who entered the country illegally, especially once corporate employers have let their undocumented older or injured workers go.

There is a populist twist to proposed new federal gun-control legislation as well. The wealthy or politically influential, who often advocate stricter laws for others, usually take for granted their own expensive security details, many of them armed.

In contrast, new gun-control initiatives would mostly fall on the law-abiding who hunt and wish to defend their own families and homes with their own legal weapons.

Energy policy has become a boutique issue for the wealthy who push costly wind, solar and biofuels, subsidized mostly by the 53% of Americans who actually pay federal income taxes and are most pressed by the full costs of higher fuel, electricity and heating costs.

The Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing and de facto zero interest rates have stampeded investors desperate for even modest returns from the stock market — to the delight of wealthy Wall Street grandees. The poor are eligible for both debt relief and cheap (and often subsidized) mortgage rates that remain near historic lows.

The real losers are frugal members of the middle class. For the last five years they have received almost no interest on their modest passbook savings accounts. In other words, we are punishing thrift and reminding modest savers that they might have been better off either borrowing or gambling on Wall Street.

 

Gun control myths demolished

This video does a good job of demolishing some gun control myths, e.g. “gun control prevents gun crime”. To those of us who remember that “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, there is no surprise in the video itself. The only surprise is that it was broadcast prime time by ABC News (20/20).

  • Since Washington’s gun ban passed, the murder rate actually increased, even while in the rest of the country it went down.
  • Guns can also save lives.
  • Just pulling out the gun was enough to stop [the bad guys].
  • In the 40 states that allow concealed carry, there is no more violent crime than in states where guns are restricted.
  • After Kennesaw, GA required every home to have a gun, violent crime decreased.
  • Felons said they feared an armed victim much more than the police.
  • Felons said they didn’t worry about gun laws, they would carry a gun anyway.
  • We don’t know how often guns stopped criminals because who reports a crime that didn’t happen?
  • People use guns in self-defense every day. Often, just showing the gun is enough to stop the crime.
  • The National Academy of Sciences reviewed hundreds of studies and could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime.
  • If some [bad guy] gets in your house, which would you rather have: a handgun or a telephone?

The timing of this story is a bit strange. The blogosphere has had at least a dozen posts on this video in the last month. But it was originally broadcast in December 2010. Every few months since then another post appears as if the story is new. I don’t know why there was a flurry of activity this past October.

Colorado recall elections bigger than we realized

By now, you have heard the news that two State Senators – one actually the President of the Senate – lost recall elections due to their votes for gun control and against Due Process.

You probably did not know that:

  • These were the only successful recall elections in the 100 years since the recall law was passed.
  • Obama carried both districts by 20% last year.
  • Pro-gun control forces spent much more than the pro gun rights forces – about $3 million to about half a million.
  • Signers of the recall petitions were about 20% Democrat. Together, Independents and Democrats outnumbered Republican signers.
  • In the Giron district, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 47% to 23%.

Gun rights supporters, i.e. supporters of the civil right to bear arms to defend self, family, and community, knew that many Democrats also defend that right. Now the whole country knows it.

Americans Own Nearly Half of the Privately Owned Guns on Earth

That’s awesome! (as Glenn Reynolds says) In less than 20 years the number has grown from about 200 million to almost 300 million guns in the U.S. With Obama as the best gun salesman in history, it might not be long until we have one gun for every man, woman, and child.

The more that law-abiding citizens are armed to protect themselves, their families, their communities, the more that criminals know that fact, the more those criminals will fear the innocent citizens around them and the safer those law-abiding citizens will be.

Down in Concord

“Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs.” — P.J. O’Rourke

Every so often someone writes yet another column asking “Why can’t Republicans and Democrats get along? Can’t they talk to each other, work together, find a compromise?” The short answer is “We do, most of the time.” A second answer is “There are times when we should not.”

The simple truth is that NH legislators do work together, are very civil to each other (with rare, though well publicized, exceptions), and often become life-long friends. Anyone who says otherwise either has not observed first hand how the legislature works or is trying to make a political point. All too often, it is a mixture of both. Someone starts a narrative about the mean old nasty so and so party, repeats it over and over again, then people with no first hand knowledge come to believe it. (After all, politicians never lie.)

Let’s start with some anecdotal evidence, then some numbers. Earlier this year I went down to Concord to testify against a bill. It happened that one of my former colleagues, a very left Democrat, also testified against that same bill and he happened to go first. Later, when I testified, I remarked that this was the first time in two years that he and I had agreed on a bill. Later, we met out in the hall and laughed together. We encouraged each other to convince other members of our two parties. (The bill was eventually defeated with a bipartisan vote.)

Last session, a hard left Democrat and a hard right Republican worked closely together on a particular bill. Coincidentally, the two were geographically on the far left and far right sides of the state. They both worked very hard to pass their bill; they managed one of the rare instances of overturning a committee recommendation on the House floor. I was happy to work with both of them on that bill. Later the two of them worked together on another bill.

Now let’s look at some numbers. This year the House and Senate passed 281 bills. A full 188 of those bills, were passed by the House on the Consent Calendar. For those who may not have read my previous columns, suffice it to say that bills on Consent have all but unanimous support. Two-thirds of all the bills that were passed, were unanimous. (And of the bills that were killed, many, perhaps most, were also unanimous.)

So any time you hear complaints about legislators being mean and nasty to each other, not working together, please realize that it is almost always someone trying to stir up trouble for partisan advantage. The truth is that they DO work together, usually in a collegial, respectful atmosphere.

But there are times when they should not compromise. Suppose a Democrat and a Republican decide to drive down to New York City. For those who are geographically impaired, NYC is mostly South and a little West of us. Now let’s suppose that the two politicians approach an intersection. The Democrat wants to turn left and head North; the Republican wants to turn right and head South. Should they compromise and head East?

On some issues the division is just as stark as the choice between driving North or South – it makes no sense to compromise on East.

Republicans, generally speaking, want to cut taxes; Democrats want to increase taxes. This year Democrats pushed hard for an increase in the gas tax of 15 cents. They later offered a compromise of 12 cents. Why should Republicans compromise on any increase at all, when what we really want is to reduce taxes?

Democrats for the most part want bigger, more powerful government. Republicans want smaller, limited government. How can the two sides compromise when they are such opposites? (Historically, Republicans have compromised on a little bigger here, a little bigger there – which is one reason many people think there is little difference between the two parties.)

Affordable health care is a nice goal. The two parties have opposite solutions. Democrats thought the solution was to write a 2,000+ page bill, write tens of thousands of pages of regulations, hire 10,000 IRS agents. Now even many of the original supporters realize that Obamacare is a train wreck in progress.

Republicans know that the solution to more affordable, higher quality health care is a free market, with many providers competing to find the best solution at the best price. This approach has proven to work and is working today in those places where government regulations allow it.

Some Democrats call for compromise on so-called “gun safety.” What they fail to understand is that the criminals don’t obey the existing 10,000 laws and won’t obey one additional gun law. Republicans understand that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Republicans believe that self-defense is a fundamental right, that a woman has the right to choose whether to carry a handgun to protect herself against a rapist. Would Democrats compromise and allow any woman for her safety and the safety of her children to carry a concealed weapon without a permit?

Democrats and Republicans do compromise on a large majority of bills, but on some issues they cannot and should not compromise.

Crowd sizes tell a story

“Audit the IRS” Tea Party rally in Washington – 10,000 to 12,000.

Obama speaks in Berlin – 4,500. Five years ago 200,000 came out to see him. One report labeled his speech a “disaster”:

Sweating profusely in front of a relatively small crowd as his teleprompter failed him, Barack Obama looked every bit the stumbling and mumbling individual some close to him have long whispered he truly is…

President Obama repeated lines, his voice wavered, he looked confused, the crowd’s response was tepid, and he was clearly sweating through his clothes.  It was among the worst public performances of his presidency.

Organizing for Action gathers a whopping three people for gun-control rally in California.