Back in the eighties I was handed the task of giving a speech to a church in my jurisdiction. I almost got fired as a result. My error? I told the truth.
The police force I worked for at the time expected me to tell the public what the public sheep wanted to hear. That all was well, that the police force was competent and quick to act to save you from danger.
Nothing was farther from the truth. Sure we were competent, in the way that any human organization filled with people with varying degrees of intelligence, common sense and courage can be. Sure we could, and did, respond quite well to crimes…if we knew they were happening. However, our department’s response time was about six minutes from the time you dialed 911. A lot can happen in six minutes. Heck, at terminal velocity you would fall from a plane at 35,000 feet and hit the ground in little over three minutes. Six minutes is two rounds of boxing and anyone in a fight for six minutes will tell you it can be an eternity.
So, when I told the people in the church that day the truth was they had better learn to protect themselves until we got there, my bosses were not happy at all. You see, it is all about the white rabbit and the black top hat. The reality is the first line of defense when you are attacked is NOT your 911 phone call. It is your hands and feet, your mindset and any tool you can turn into a weapon to protect yourself from the attacker until the attack stops or the police shows up. The administration and the politicians would like to have you believe differently. They would like you to believe they can solve your problems. That is how they justify growing budgets, new gadgets and more and more power over you.
Even the courts like to act as though they have power over criminal behavior. They don’t. Restraining orders are a classic example of such a useless tool. Women are told to believe when one is issued against an abusive person, that person will adhere to the ruling. Why? If the guy likes to commit the crime of battery and or stalking, why do you think he’d pay attention to some nimrod in a black robe sitting on the bench telling him not to? That’s just stupid, and more than one woman has learned that lesson at the cost of her welfare or her life.
The Left’s desire to disarm America is foolish as it is futile. How many guns are in America? Hundreds of millions. Ammunition and magazines? Far more than that. Trying to “seize them” would be a fool’s errand, and frankly dangerous. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out it would simply cause an insurrection, and as usually the poor schlub in at the pointy end of that resistance would be some regular guy who happens to be a police officer or federal officer. He or she will have a family, friends, kids, a pet or something else to go home to. They are most likely decent people and not part of the ten percent who are the dangerous and mindless order followers that always occupy the governments throughout history. But they’ll be tasked by distant politicians and bureaucrats to grab up guns, sometimes by force, which will simply put them in harm’s way. That is unfair to anyone involved in the process. Nobody except the people out of range from any violence will win. If the people resist, it will give the politicians more justification to authorize more force. More force equals more resistance. It is just a stupid cycle we need to avoid. But it is an ugly example of the sad but inevitable decline of our personal freedoms as we exchange them for a false security. Thomas Sowell points out the foolishness quite well.
Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of gun control advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun-control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun-control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun-control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun-control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
The rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand-gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun-control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun-control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun-control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun-murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control were the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun-control laws on both sides of the Atlantic have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s after decades of ever tightening gun-ownership restrictions there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
I remember back in the eighties how I was lectured by a London Metropolitan Police Commander over here for a visit. He just couldn’t get over the fact we were armed. He asked if we would ever consider trying to police without weapons. I told him sure, if we wanted to end up robbed and stuck in the trunk of our cars. We had BAD GUYS in America. His attitude must have changed years later. I was told by another friend who was pen pals with a London officer the rate of violent crime had exploded by the nineties and many police were arming themselves. It was the change in demographics and cultural attitude as Britain declined.
Back in the day, a British police officer would apprehend a suspect and that person just went to jail. It was the English way. No muss, no fuss. But when the Jamaicans moved in along with the Russians and the other Eastern Europeans things changed. They didn’t go quietly with a stiff upper lip. They fought back and fought back with guns. The bad guys armed up, the police armed up and the only people left holding the victim bag were the British citizens who foolishly believed if they gave up their right to protect themselves the police would protect them instead and the society would be at peace. It was a lie. All of it.
In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
- The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
- It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
- The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
- It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
Gun banning is simply stupid and dangerous. Let’s go after the nutcases and the criminals and we’ll see even a greater reduction in acts of violence.
Remember, It isn’t the gun, it is ALWAYS the shooter.