Skip navigation

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=4a451ee5-71c3-4f29-a826-3260fb1eaaa1

We need crime control –not gun control

George Jonas, National Post Published: Saturday, December 13, 2008

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month claimed some 500 casualties, dead and injured. Among the many questions raised by the outrage, there was a purely practical one: Why was the attack so successful? How could so few terrorists claim so many victims?

One obvious answer is firepower. Guns were illegal in the hands of both the terrorists and the victims. The victims obeyed the laws, the terrorists didn’t. The police had guns, of course, but instead of protecting people, they stayed away until the massacre was practically over. Gun laws — surprise, surprise! — weren’t strong enough to defend victims, only strong enough to keep victims from defending themselves.

India’s gun control, one of the strictest in the world, goes back to the 19th century when Britain introduced it to forestall a repetition of the Indian Mutiny. “The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all ‘prohibited weapons’ under Indian law,” wrote Richard Munday in the Times Online, “just as they are in Britain.” The terrorists were successful because they didn’t obey the gun control law rooted in the Raj, while their victims did.

India isn’t alone. Many countries, including Canada, have gone out of their way to make criminals as invincible and victims as vulnerable as possible. This isn’t the aim, of course, only the result.

“Guns don’t kill, people do.” The gun lobby’s old slogan is true enough, but it’s also true that guns make people more efficient killers. That’s why gun control would be such a splendid idea if someone could find a way to make criminals and lunatics obey it. Since only law-abiding citizens obey it, it’s not such a hot idea. It’s more like trying to control stray dogs by neutering veterinarians.

The police carry guns for a reason: They’re great tools for law enforcement. No doubt, guns make criminals more efficient, but they make crime fighters more efficient, too. Letting firearms become the monopoly of lawbreakers, far from enhancing public safety, is detrimental to it. What you want is more armed people, not fewer, on the side of the law. It would be hard to imagine a Mumbai-type atrocity in Dodge City — or in Edwardian Europe, for that matter, where gentlemen routinely carried handguns for protection.

Some regard carrying guns uncivilized. I’d hesitate to call an era of legal guns in the hands of Edwardian gentlemen less civilized–or less safe — than our own era of illegal guns in the hands of drug dealers and terrorists. The civilized place was turn-of-the century London, where citizens carried guns and the police didn’t. In any event, a constitutional guarantee to one’s “security of person” shouldn’t depend on how fast a 911 operator can pick up the phone.

Society needs crime control, not gun control. Munday writes that “violent crime in America has plummeted” in the past two decades after the majority of states enacted “right to carry” legislation and issued permits to carry concealed weapons to citizens of good repute. I think there were many reasons for the decline, but “right to carry” certainly wasn’t detrimental to it.

There are Second Amendment absolutists in America, and libertarians elsewhere, who regard a person’s birthright to own/carry a firearm beyond the state’s power to regulate. I’m not one of them. I think it’s reasonable for communities to set thresholds of age, proficiency, legal status, etc., for the possession of lethal weapons, just as they set standards for the operation of motor vehicles, airplanes and ham radios. But it seems to me that, within common sense perimeters, you’d want to enhance, not diminish, the defensive capacity of the good guys, and increase rather than decrease the number of auxiliary crime-fighters who are available to be deputized when the bad guys start climbing over the fence.

Munday quotes no less an advocate of non-violence than Mahatma Gandhi on the imperial decree of the Indian Arms Act of 1878 that laid the foundation for the defencelessness of the victims of the Mumbai massacre 130 years later. “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” said the Mahatma, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/opinion/stories/nugent/2008/12/14/12142008_wac_nugent.html

Ted Nugent: Gun-free zone a crime unto itself

Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t end up defenseless victims

Sunday, December 14, 2008

There is no bigger advocate for criminal control than me, so long as we do not go about manufacturing criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people.

Enter New York Giants player Plaxico Burress. He accidentally blew a hole in his leg with his Glock handgun while in a New York City nightclub. His list of crimes against responsible gun handling is too long to share with you here. He’s a Numbnut of the Year award winner.

Ah, but this is even more idiotic: New York City is going to throw the Sullivan Gun Law book at Burress for merely having a handgun.

Only a select few people are given permits to carry a gun in the Big Apple. For this, Burress could get quite a few years at the Cross Bars Hotel.

Criminal thugs, of course, are not deterred from carrying guns by New York City’s draconian gun laws. Mayor Blowhard Bloomberg and other Big Apple elected buffoons who forbid NYC citizens from defending themselves are complicit in turning innocent, law-abiding citizens into defenseless victims.

By review: Gun-free zones, are a murderer’s dream zone.

With the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Burress’ legal sharks should argue that New York City’s restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

While the media spotlight has been on Burress, a little-reported story is more telling.

St. Louis Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe stated that people should indeed get guns and carry them in order to protect themselves, as cops clearly can’t be everywhere. His point is undeniable.

Our Founding Fathers wrote extensively about a person’s right and obligation to carry a gun for self-defense. To be unarmed and helpless is irresponsible. In the eyes of everyone I know, it is unforgivable.

The world watched in horror as terrorists in Mumbai, India, killed almost 200 people and wounded more than 300 others. The unarmed victims were slaughtered like defenseless sheep. It took Indian SWAT teams hours to even begin to respond and more than three days to finally wipe out the killers. I like bad guys wiped out before the carnage.

Attack coming soon

Terrorism and security experts all expect America to be hit again soon. While I salute President Bush, our intelligence agencies and lawmen who have prevented these monsters from attacking us for eight years, we all know such an event is not a matter of “if” but “when.” Therefore, it is incumbent for our laws to allow us the means to protect ourselves from these terror monsters.

Imagine terrorists simultaneously attacking a number of hotels in Manhattan, or an event at Madison Square Garden or Central Park. As good as they are, it would take hours or days for the New York City’s finest to kill or capture all of the terrorists.

Now try to imagine the same scenario if New York City residents were allowed to carry guns to protect themselves. At least they would have a fighting chance. Not today.

Thanks to its well-body-guarded mayor and other anti-freedom bureaucrats, New York City residents would be as helpless as the victims in Mumbai.

Prosecuting Burress and others for carrying a gun sends a message to terrorists: “Come to the Big Apple. We’re defenseless.”

Ted Nugent is a Waco-based musician and televison show host. Contact him directly at tednugent.com.

And there you have the words of common sense. “Common Sense” Gun control laws are “Common Sense” extermination of people.  I recall the words of Paul Harvey ” Next time some talks about gun control ask them which class of people they’d like exterminated”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: