Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Shooting Utopia

August 28, 2012 by  

Shooting Utopia
UPI FILE
Over the weekend, 28 people in Chicago ended up on the wrong end of a gun barrel; 9 of them failed to survive the encounter.

In the 16th century, Sir Thomas More first theorized Utopia as an island blessed by the perfect union of civilized legal, political and social interaction. By modern definition, Utopia is paradise. The problem with Utopia lies in More’s own description. Utopia is imaginary. It can’t exist for one simple reason: Everyone’s vision is different.

For example, my version includes palm trees, one of those infinity pools and Rebecca De Mornay serving me my famous “Scotch coffee” (the recipe is noted in an earlier column) while she’s dressed in the stuff Victoria thought was a little too secret. Meanwhile, a Marine Force Recon sniper sits on the roof with a Dillon Minigun to keep unwanted visitors clear. Your version might be different. Perhaps you might prefer a different locale. Maybe your Utopia includes the Marine serving the drinks while De Mornay mans the Minigun (have fun telling the Marine about his new orders).

But that’s the nature of Utopia. It can’t exist, because it changes from person to person. The best we can do is to carve out a slice of something close amid the less-than-Utopian travails of daily life. And that’s why we have a Constitution. That magnificent document enumerates the tools we have at our disposal to make our own world as perfect as possible. It also enumerates the limits to which others can go to restrict our efforts. As any observer of left-wing political activism knows, the liberal idea of Utopia specifically obviates mine — and not just because De Mornay will complain about her “work uniform.”

Consider the self-described “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.” Its version of Utopia pretty much crumples up mine and throws it in the compost heap with the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist in the Brady Utopia. Barring government service, you and I have no right to keep arms and certainly have none to bear. And, because guns are banned in Bradyland, crimes involving firearms are unheard of. Of course, in keeping with the logical impossibility of Utopia, no such place exists.

Except that it does. Welcome to Chicago, the Brady Campaign’s idea of Utopia. The Windy City has served as an ersatz laboratory for statists to test the limits of the Bill of Rights; it features some of the most stringent gun-ownership laws in the country. Indeed, the heart of Democratic-machine political hegemony, Chicago has run afoul of the Constitution on multiple occasions in the past few years. First, a Supreme Court decision (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010) winged Chicago’s decades-old handgun ban. Then, a second Federal court ruling staggered the city’s revamped-but-still-draconian gun laws. With the Federal courts whacking them across the nose with a rolled-up copy of the Bill of Rights, Chicago’s city authorities have resisted the lesson, trying desperately to restrict gun ownership by every means at their disposal.

And what an idyllic paradise Chicago has become as a result — provided you ignore all the violent crime. Although not as much a modern-day expression of the Wild West as neighbors like St. Louis and fellow Illinois burg Springfield, Chicago is a virtual shooting gallery. Despite a citizenry disarmed by statute, the third-largest city in the Nation is nearly three times as violent as the largest, New York, and twice as dangerous as No. 2, Los Angeles. While Chicago’s crime rate doesn’t rise to the shocking levels of Democrat-controlled enclaves such as New Orleans or Detroit (which actually surprised me; I presumed Detroit would have run out of victims by now), it’s a dangerous place despite its disarmed denizens.

This past weekend, Chi-Town proffered more proof of the Brady Campaign’s folly. Twenty-eight people ended up on the wrong end of the barrel; 9 of them failed to survive the encounter. Despite gun ownership restrictions only slightly less onerous than the inside of a prison, nearly a dozen presumably disarmed citizens met their maker. There exists nary a shred of proof that the possession of a firearm would have saved any of these unfortunate Chicagoans. But for the hundreds of victims of Chicago violence each year (including the weekends’ sufferers), the proof that gun bans don’t work is right there on their toe tags.

If Chicago is the Brady Campaign’s idea of paradise, I’ll stick with mine.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Shooting Utopia”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jeremy Leochner

    The Brady Campaign is perhaps over zealous in their desire to eliminate all gun violence. However I am more inclined to agree with them.

    For instance a survey conducted in 2008 by the Violence Policy Center found that the states of Hawaii and Massachusetts had the lowest number of gun deaths per 100,000 people while Alaska and Mississippi were ranked as having the highest. -http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart11.htm

    In 2011 the Daily Beast found that Hawaii retained its position with the lowest number of deaths per 100,000 while Massachusetts had gone up by one position being slightly more then Rhode Island. Meanwhile Louisiana had the taken first place with most gun deaths followed by Mississippi with Alaska tied for third with Alabama.-http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

    On the Brady Campaign 2011 scoring of Gun Control by state they ranked Louisiana, Mississippi and Alaska in their weakest Gun Control Laws bracket with Alabama in their second to weakest. While Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island were all ranked in their second to strongest gun control laws bracket.-http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/

    Ultimately extremism is never the answer. Too much Gun Control is just as bad as not enough. For me the evidence suggests that stronger gun control is more conducive to less gun violence then weaker gun control.

    • Johnny Gee

      My take on the shooting spree in Chicago is that it is more a symtom of the underlying disease that affects the black community. The culture of the Chicago citezen is far different than most of the rest of the country, They are elated to hear about Obama’s Chicago way! I have heard and read about people in Chicago that consider “Gangsta” a positive attribute in our president. This is not all about the 2nd amendment but rather about a cullture of black violence.

      • eddie47d

        Its not the Chicago Way or the Obama Way as it is being presented but the fact that poorer neighborhoods always have more street violence. Thus more gun related deaths because gangs have a better chance of thrieving. Whether black,brown or white if you have nothing to show for your life you don’t take other peoples lives seriously. Some of it is nothing more than a power trip for disenfranchized youth in proving that they are invinceable. The bigger question should be where are these youth getting all these guns to commit those crimes of violence. Blaming the Brady Center solves nothing but that is continually done on the right. Putting more weapons in a volital situation will only make it more violent because the safety and morals of gun usuage will still not be there. It a big difference between Kennesaw, Ga where the neighborhood is already safe and little crime occurs to begin with.

      • swampfox

        Right on!

    • Robert Smith

      ““Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.””

      James Brady was a REPUBLICAN defining the presence of Ronald Reagan when he was shot in the head. I guess that’s what it takes to turn a Republican into something else. Kinda like Ronald switched from being a Union Boss and Democrat to be a Republican. My my… Major flip flops. That teflon “hero”… But I digress.

      Actually I’ll bet James is still a Republican but it was his wife that suffered the brain damage.

      Gun control doesn’t work. It’s thta simple. But arming ourselves can only do so much. We wind up having to hold our collective noses defend nut cases like Zimmerman. Quite frankly I think that’s sad.

      We need to get to the root of the violence. Half of the gun “violence” is suicide. Either accept it or help fund mental health services. That’s the choice we must make as a society. How can anyone be opposed to assisted suicide and on the other hand be saying here’s your gun? At least when someone comes forward for help there is a chance for an intervention.

      Many of the mass shooters didn’t have a criminal history but they had mental issues. There wasn’t enough care or funding to follow up on them when there were early indications. Then there is the screeching about “privacy.” Sheesh, again, let’s decide as a society what needs to be done. Either fund treatment and understand that some individuals need to be looked at, or accept the deaths.

      Then there is outright criminal enterprise. As a country we have so many in jail. Why? The major issue is drugs. Why don’t we grow up and accept the fact that some folks are gonna partake of recreational drugs? Countries that have accepted that fact have slashed the criminal elements. Its simple: No money, no incentive to go shoot someone.

      And finally there will certainly be crimes of passion. Again, funding early intervention has the potental to reduce such, but it isn’t ever going to go away. Sadly sometimes folks just snap. No amount of gun control will stop that and a ball bat is just as deadly.

      So, gun control isn’t about guns. It’s about CHOICES we need to make as a society.

      The left wing needs to understand that it isn’t guns and the right wing needs to understand that it’s people issues. On the right, where do you want to spend money? On treatment or in funerals? If you don’t opt for treatment don’t every try to claim “pro-life.” It would be a lie.

      What’s that thing about false witness?

      Rob

      • s c

        Comrade ‘r,’ is your middle name Digress? It seems fair to say that people like you should live in Chicago. Then, you can “bless” that place with your vast knowledge of everything under the sun [except for common sense, of course]. Are you one of the confused types who thinks Chiago is really trying to get rid of their gun woes? By the way, Reagan finally understood that ‘Democrats’ were too fond of being around hoods and crime. That’s when he switched parties, airhead.
        In a town like Chicago,they’ll never rid themselves of organized crime or those who might as well be members of organized crime – (politicians, that is) If you ever get to meet Rahmbo, ask him what he’s been doing since he left Washington in disgrace. You can bet he’s ‘putting the arm’ on those who can donate big bucks to Obummer’s utopia. When it comes to gun problems, you can be sure that Rahmbo is not available for comment – unless you have deep pockets. Some get it. Some don’t to get it. You are in the second group, comrade.

      • http://realsustainability.wordpress.com realsustainability

        Robert, try reading, The Death of Common Sense” by Philip K. Howard, Random House 1994. It’s main tenent is how bureaucratic rigitity, ultracomplex procedures & ineffective horrendously expensive rules for doing almost anything have suppressed good judgement & everyday common sense. Either with the best of intentions or the strong desire for control the end results are the same, (I prefer to think the former but fear the latter) we’re letting bureaucrats and politicians, who have the least experience base to draw on, make rules and laws for the rest of us. I’d be willing to bet that 90% of the those making the laws in defiance of the Second Ammendment would not have a clue how to fill the clip, load or what to expect from firing a 1911. OR, for that matter, what a 1911 even is. There is no need to inject more guns into a cesspool like Chicago or Detroit. Just let everyday folks have a chance at defending themselves. Creating such a tangle of laws that nobody knows which applies to what or even how many there are defeats their purpose & allows an elite cast of legal interpreters to proliferate. Kind of like the Catholic church did in the dark ages. Only the church sanctioned church “leaders” were allowed to interpret the bible to the commoners. Out of that grew the horrors of the Inquisition & supression of almost everything under penalty of excommunication. Let common sense once again be unfetteredand in a free land as ours was envisioned to be and was for so long. THAT means reducing the number of lawyers, politicians AND the size of government. We need to re-learn how to be supportive of, respectful to & understand each other. Then we have the possibility of closing ranks against those few who would do harm and that includes an overzelous government. It also does not necessarily mean doing anything with guns but that possibility must remain because that’s part of our Constitution and the last line of defense againstthe subversion from within, to which we are dangerously close these days. Remember, an armed society is a polite society!

      • Robert Smith

        realetc.: “OR, for that matter, what a 1911 even is.”

        Spent many hours enjoying a Gold Cup. It was almost a waste of a gun shooting better than I was a bowling pins. When it came to using it as a high speed paper punch nothing was better at printing where I wanted it to. See, I’m opposed to gun control. Got that? I’m OPPOSED to gun control.

        But, as a socety we need to stop the carnage somehow. We have social issues, not gun issues. In neigborhoods where the only way out is through crime we need to offer opportunities, not swagger and dare them to steal from anyone but us.

        Shootings aren’t even narrowd down to cities. If you look at zip codes the differences are even more striking. If you eliminate a few dozen zip codes from the stats in NY city or Chicago their figures look like rural America.

        Why deny someone treatment if it will prevent another mass shooting? Why not let someone have pot if it will clear a street corner from dealers?

        Rob

    • Kay

      Responsible gun owners do not run around shooting people period, but illegally armed criminals do. If some thug kicks down my door with the intent of rape, theft, murder or worse I’m prepared to defend myself and my family instead of becoming just another defenseless Brady Campaign statistic. Obama wants our guns for one reason and only one reason, and its not because he cares about saving lives. He wants a defenseless, sheeple-like society than he can dictate to without fear of armed revolution. Just look at all the third world dictators and thugs in the UN that want nothing more than seeing Americans suppressed like their freedomless subjects. Why do you think Obama and Hillary are constantly attacking our 2nd amendment rights through the UN backdoor? Hope you realize they do not have good intentions.

      • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.sherman.589 Thomas Sherman

        10-4 on that!!!

      • eddie47d

        No one is taking away your right to protect yourself in your home so why keep bring that up. People are dying in places like Chicago and you go off half cocked about world wide gun confiscation. Those fears have nothing to do with these deaths and I doubt if any gangbanger cares about what the United Nation thinks. Your pro gun Utopia isn’t working any better than the anti-gun Utopia.

      • Flashy

        Errrr….President Obama has not proposed nor moved towards any restrictions on firearms. If you make the claim, i’d love to see where you’re coming up woth the spiel Pres. Obama is taking your guns.

        We now live in an era where the restrictions on voting are passed and emplaced, cutting down the numbers who vote…and ease the restrictions on preventing thugs, criminals, and nutcases from being armed and dangerous.

        Crystal picks Chicago and emphasizes the gun control laws in that city. What he conveniently fails to disclose is the ease of access to firearms just OUTSIDE the city…and which are brought in. He cites NY etc as being below Chicago in violent crime. he fails to talk about the restrictions placed by Mayor Bloomberg of NYC (a moderate Republican) and the intensive monitoring of the city (I cringe about that violation of liberty)

        So, you have guns everywhere, and no monitoring. You get what you asked for. An intimidated citizenry and people dying left and right. I’d ask what Crystal is griping about. A large city with armed citizenry. Ya think it would be non violent? Seriously?

        As Justice Scalia has pointed out..the 2nd has restrictions. It is not a carte blanche ticket to pack iron. Time, place, manner are all areas which can be regulated to keep maniacs from wandering around free to shoot at those of us who choose to be civilized and not afraid of our common man.

        One wants to pack around a loaded firearm? Fine..have at it. On your property. Off site? Unless job or extenuating circumstances warrant..shouldn’t happen because it’s not needed. you want to cry and yell about protecting oneself? Tell it to the wind. In NYC, the Empire Building shooter was snuffed by the cops…and more than a few people were wounded…by the cops in defending themselves and in carrying out their duty. Trained professionals…people laying all over wounded. I shudder to think of what would have been the result had some untrained wild eyed clint eastwood wannbe had opened up trying to be a hero.

        Anytime someone uses a firearm (except in hunting or training?)…like a cop, face a board of inquiry to ensure the weapons discharge was justified. one believes they have training and awareness to fire a gun ? Then one would have o problem explaining their actions…a public confirmation and citation of heroism so to speak.

        No one is calling for a prohibition on gun ownership. But the pendulum has swung so far to the extreme, lunatics are running the asylum.

      • Rod

        Get us out of the UN! That would be the best thing for the United States. These UN idiots were working on a treaty, they found out it didn’t stand a ghost prayer in hell of passing in the US, so now they’re working on another peace of paper that will come in force as soon as Obummer signs it. No treaty, no senate approval, no states ratification. National sovereignty goes out the window.

      • Flashy

        Rod..think through that haze you have which you refer to as thought. Please explain how any administration can enter into any binding international agreement without the Senate giving the OK…

      • eddie47d

        This article has to do with gun deaths in Chicago by the usage of firearms can Rod comprehend that. This whole article has nothing to do with the UN but wild killings in an American city.

      • http://yahoo gator

        flashy obama, you still around? i guess you don’t live in chicago!
        no your favorite anti-AMERICAN, racist, amatuer-in-charge, hussein IS puhing for WORLDWIDE gun control, through his little white girl hillary, with the un firearms treaty.
        ‘little hussein’ won’t try to push gun countrol in the USA unless he gets re-elected. he knows he would have no chance of re-election had he tried it here now.

      • Opal the Gem

        “Errrr….President Obama has not proposed nor moved towards any restrictions on firearms. If you make the claim, i’d love to see where you’re coming up woth the spiel Pres. Obama is taking your guns.”

        Disproven many times over by many different posters so I am not going to bother to do it yet again.

        “We now live in an era where the restrictions on voting are passed and emplaced, cutting down the numbers who vote…and ease the restrictions on preventing thugs, criminals, and nutcases from being armed and dangerous.”

        You provide some proof of what you claim flushy.

    • Robert Smith

      From Jeremy: “While Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island were all ranked in their second to strongest gun control laws bracket.-http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/”

      Hmmmm, let’s look at that. What do they all have in common? Health care!

      It ain’t the gun laws that are making the difference. It’s that the population is respected, and oh yes, their pot laws are all relatively relaxed.

      Proves what I posted a few minutes ago. Please think about it. Address the problems and please quit spouting political blather.

      Rob

      • Jeremy Leochner

        How am I spouting political blather. The sources I cited suggest that the states with weak gun control have more gun related deaths then states with stronger gun control. I was simply stating that I believe that lax gun control encourages gun violence. I will admit those issues you mentioned but I believe we need to try and stay in the argument field as my debate teacher would call it. My sources supported something and that is what I posted. I do not believe it was political blather.

      • Robert Smith

        “The sources I cited suggest that the states with weak gun control have more gun related deaths then states with stronger gun control. ”

        Is that coincidental or causative?

        There are also places like Kennsaw, GA, with mandates that each citizen has a gun. They have pretty much zero crime.

        Rob

    • BP

      More gun control reduces crime? You’re missing a crucial item…..the FACTS. Read John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime. It is chock full of statistics, taking into account many variables, and is a responsible and studious study of the issue by any objective measure. Even gun control advocates cannot deny he’s done his homework. If you want to entertain facts at all, you MUST consult this book. Even if you’re not a numbers cruncher, it aligns perfectly with common sense……a violent criminal preferes an unarmed victim over an armed one on any day that ends ‘y’. Which method, gun control or gun rights, lends itself to that truth?

      • KJQ

        I second that. And Dr. Lott’s book “The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control is Wrong”, although older, is a fascinating read on how liberal politicians and the mainstream media purposely fail to report lawful use of firearms by citizens to stop crimes to such a degree that most people don’t think that there are any such incidents, when the ration is 5 to 1 crimes prevented by law abiding CCP citizens to successful crimes.

      • cawmun cents

        Apparently there are some who would be better suited observing the animal kingdom,and seeing the effects of predatory nature.
        Seldom do predators take healthy,aware,well nourished victims.
        They prey on the weak,stupid,and unhealthy animals.
        If you are vigilant,have weapons with which to defend yourself,and have been given a healthy diet,the predators seem to go elsewhere for their meals.
        To be sure in desparation,sometimes(though not very often)predators will attack healthy prey if they are hungry enough,but this can result in injuries which make it difficult for them to survive.
        It is the same when dealing with criminal behavior.
        They usually attack the weak and underprotected.
        This is why no matter how much healthcare you devise to take care of the unhealthy,there will always be the stupid and/or unaware people who get made into victims.
        And those who are unable to defend themselves are destined to be hapless victims of violent criminals.
        Democrats want the populace to be dependent upon them to defend them.
        The condition however,is one of not being able to supply that which needs to be inherent in the individual for survival.
        Individuality,not group mentality is therefore necessary for the survival of the fittest.
        One needs to be faster,smarter,and more adept at defnding oneself as time progresses,in order to be worthy of survivability.
        That is something which has to come from individual preparedness,and not from politically driven policy.This is why gun control cannot work to serve all members of a populace.
        Because it relies on group efforts,which often do not exist in the real world under criminal conditions.
        Posses the ability to defend yourself and let nobody else tell you that you cannot,and then tyranny will flee from you.Ohter wise you set yourself up fro whatever may come your way and falling victim to it.
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • Rod

        Another good source that speaks to the statistics of gun control, “Shooting Blanks,” by Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman. Mr. Gottlieb is head of the Second Amendment Foundation. The book is outstanding, I rarely read this type material, but finished it in about four sittings. I need to re-read it to get all my facts straight and reviewed.

      • Flashy

        Yep..and that is why the states with the easiest gun control laws are…why….the most likely to get shot! Take out the Big City effect…which proves another point that you pack a lot of people together, tempers are short, especially if there aren’t jobs and training availabiliities.

      • eddie47d

        Not a bad analogy Cawmun Cents but some of the replies are bizzare.Too many assume that putting more weapons into already volitale neighborhoods or into the hands of individuals who don’t use common sense will make things all better. Lets say if a gang member is killed generally they will want to avenge that death and kill someone else and so forth and so on. More guns equal more killings in those situations.

      • vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Yep..and that is why the states with the easiest gun control laws are…why….the most likely to get shot!”.

        Hmmmm. Proof by bald assertion? Not surprising considering the source. Not only that but the statement is in factual error. I.E. A lie.

        WARNING TO LIBERALS: Facts ahead
        http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

      • vicki

        Eddie47d writes:
        “Too many assume that putting more weapons into already volitale neighborhoods or into the hands of individuals who don’t use common sense will make things all better. ”

        They make no such assumption. They do know, however that when individuals who don’t use common sense fail, they will be able to defend themselves and their neighbors.

      • Flashy

        Vicki….interesting you state that.

        how’s this ? It’s a pretty picture for you since comprehension seems to be an issue with you. Note the nice demarcation of the colors?
        http://chartsbin.com/view/1206

        Or…how’s about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms recent release of nationwide crime gun trace data for 2009. (guns recovered by police and traced back to the dealer that sold the gun.)? Notice that the guns used in crime came from lax gun control states? Feedin’ the need so to speak? That data shows that Mississippi, for the second year in a row, had the highest rate of crime guns exported to other states ( followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Alabama). Hawaii, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, all states with strong gun laws, had the lowest rates of crime gun exports, with rates less than one crime gun export per 100,000 people. (http://www.atf.gov/statistics)

        Or…hows this one? Shows the firearm death rates…oh look ! the states with the lax gun control laws have the most folks killed.

        http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

        Want more?

        now…as you were saying about being mistaken in facts creates a lie?

      • 45caliber

        flash:

        I’m not sure what liberal site you are getting your info from (and don’t care) but try the FBI records. You will find that the places with the easiest gun laws (concealed carry) has the least crime. The places that are most restrictive on gun control (Chicago and Washington, DC) have the highest. I wouldn’t believe what you see on those lib sites.

      • eddie47d

        Flashy is talking about States and those charts are correct. Look them up on other web sites and they will still be the same.

      • vicki

        Flashy actually proves that he/she knows what a cite is and how to show us by writing:
        “Vicki….interesting you state that.

        how’s this ? It’s a pretty picture for you since comprehension seems to be an issue with you. Note the nice

        demarcation of the colors?”

        Too bad he had to toss in an ad hominem. But hey we are making progress. Now to the chart itself.

        —————————————————–
        This map shows Number of violent crimes per 100,000 people rank in United States Peace Index (USPI) 2011.

        Number of violent crimes per 100,000 people rank is one of the five indicators use to produce United States Peace Index.

        The five indicators and their weights assigned to each indicator are:

        Number of homicides per 100,000 people: 4
        Number of violent crimes per 100,000 people: 4
        Number of jailed population per 100,000 people: 3
        Number of police employees per 100,000 people: 3
        Availability of small arms: 1
        —————————————————-

        When you actually look at the data they used and compare the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people against the availability of small arms (they do provide that data for those of use who really can see numbers) you quickly see that there is no actual correlation between them. You also notice that the pretty colors that attracted flashy cover only ranking by violent crimes. It would of course include violent crimes stopped by by law abiding citizens actually using guns to defend themselves AND reporting the event so it could be in the chart.

        Other sources of actual scientific study find evidence that there are a LOT of successful uses of firearms to defend which are not reported. Thus the data is missing from all those states. Here is one such study. The author btw was a strong proponent of gun control. Then he applied science. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html This is a strong indicator of actual vs climate-gate science.

    • Rod

      You obviously haven’t watched the British video showing on this site. The British people want the law overturned. They’re tired of the 40% increase in gun crime in the country. They want to be able to defend themselves, their families, and their property from criminals that don’t obey the laws and buy guns on the black market.

      • 45caliber

        Rod:

        I agree. And when the authorities insist that you can do nothing to defend yourself, it is really dangerous!

      • David169

        Rod,
        The libertards have gone a lot farther than just taking guns from honest citizens in England. They have also legislated away all large knives such as the ones needed to properly carve a roast or a turkey. They have gone so far as to pass laws that if you see a crime in progress such as a rape it is a criminal act to interfere. Instead you are to call the police. Any action on your part would be an assault on the assailant.Then you would get prosecuted for assault and sued on top of it by the rapist. During the recent racial and religious riots they had, honest citizens bought the deadliest weapon they are allowed for self protection, baseball bats.
        I have always owned guns. I would not try to impose my opinion about ownership of firearms on anyone who was uncomfortable with guns. However I have given away many NRA car window decals to non gun owners who put them on the car they park in their driveway or in front of their house. It seems criminals are hesitant to invade a house where they may meet armed resistance. Just an NRA decal is enough to make a criminal think twice and choose a different house to invade. Criminals say their worst fear is a woman with a high capacity handgun or high capacity shotgun.If they get scared they will shoot until the gun is empty.

      • 45caliber

        David:

        I had an old western gunfighter (who taught me to shoot) tell me that a hysterical woman is the most accurate shot in the world since she instictively points. And I tell my wife and daughter that if they do have to shoot to protect themselves that I want that gun empty when they get finished.

    • http://loboviejo.wordpress.com loboviejo

      Earl Warren was not Fred Vinson which is why the Chief Justice authored the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education. Hugo Black was the more influential justice who saw the elder Justice Harlan’s opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson flawed. Separate could not be equal and it would not have mattered either way on the sociological studies. What the folks in the Brady Campaign do by cherry picking their numbers is trying to make behavioral sciences the crucial factor in determining the law. Even given their statistics the fact remains that regulation leads to confiscation and historically freedom is a factor of armed people facing armed governments.

    • http://none kowalski

      you are a fricken idiot period..when the shtf you will wish you had a few guns..total moron you are

      • http://none kowalski

        my comment was aimed at jeremy dumbass

      • eddie47d

        Kowalski should refrain from name calling and wait until he has his facts straight. Jeremy was actually right about Hawaii and Massachusetts (both Liberal/Progressive states) Gun deaths per 100,000 are lowest in those “blue states” (3.1 % for Mass and an even lower one for Hi – 2.8 %). Warrior below should also know that Conservative Alaska has the highest death rate by gun usuage :a whopping 20% per 100,000. Next in line are also Conservative states Louisiana 19.5%,Wyo. 18.8% and Arizona 18%. Wyoming is not known for gangs or poverty stricken large cities . So how do either of you justify your comments.

        • http://none kowalski

          you think gun control works just ask the people from england and australia..i live in wi since they passed concealed carry the crime rate has dropped i hate you bleeding heart liberals..OH WE WILL ALL BE SO SAFE IF WE ONLY GIVE UP OUR GUNS..HEY IDIOTS THE SECOND AMMENDMENT IS FOR NORMAL FOLKS TO HAVE A WAY OF PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM TYRANNY..LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER

      • eddie47d

        Those with the mental disorder go straight for the belligerent name calling so if the shoe fits Kowalskii slip in on or put it in your mouth.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Perhaps some day I will be in a situation where I require a gun. However I do not know. I am not going to live my life based around the idea that I could be in a gun fight. Its just how I choose to live my life.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      I sure wouldn’t want to live near you Jeremy, I’d have to defend you if you were attacked and I don’t defend people who don’t have the guts to defend themselves and family, the cops are there to catch the person who knifed you, clubed you to death, not protect you. The 2nd Ammendment was written to protect us from a government with all the guns who can become your dictator at will. The founders knew what it was like to be at the mercy of a armed government against the unarmed citizens and that is the reason they pasted the 2nd ammendment to the Constitution. John Adams said “A armed man is a citizen, a unarmed man is a slave” I don’t plan on being on the Marxist Slave Plantation, hope you enjoy being a slave.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I have defenses Ben. I have a guard dog and I keep several bats in the house. May not be Fort Knox but it suits me. I live in an area with a very low crime rate and so I do not feel the need to be armed at all times. In certain areas like Chicago for instance it would be better to be armed. I disagree with the law in place in Chicago. I equate it to prohibition as in a well meaning law that goes to far and ultimately back fires. I am against extreme Gun Control just as I am against what I see as extremely lax Gun Control.

    • Rod

      Jeremy, I noticed that you did not mention Vermont, a state that has had Constitutional Carry since it became a state. Vermont at it worst year had seventeen murders and most were not shooting state wide it averages seven and most were not shootings. Chicago on the other hand had thirteen unrelated shootings in a thirty minute period. If I could handle the cold I would move to Vermont in a heartbeat and would not be caught dead anywhere in Illinois.

      • eddie47d

        Chicago itself (excluding Illinois even as a whole ) is more populous than Vermont.Heck Chicago and its suburbs is larger than Vermont. False comparison sonny.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Extreme Gun Control is bad. In this case perhaps Vermont would be better.

  • Warrior

    Hmmmm, there appears to be a relationship between “progressive” controlled “blue” areas and gun violence. Why’s that?

    • Sirian

      Warrior,
      LOL!! Good question! Volumes of idiotic answers will fly I’m sure. :)

    • Flashy

      Alabama, Louisiana etc are “progressive controlled” ?

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

        Flushy sounds better then Flashy; The cities stupid, not the states, their is a difference if you come out of your drug haze? New Orleans was run by a lib, they aren’t progressive in any way, if anything, they are regressive. During Katrina, the so called progressive didn’t have the good sense God gave a jackass to use the buses to get people out before they were drown, both buses and people. Even God wants people to protect themselves and their families, Jesus asked the apostles ” Do you have a sword, if not sell your coat and buy one”, a sword was like the gun today or like I tell people, don’t take a knife to a gun fight, you lose every time.

    • eddie47d

      See my comment above Sirian and then grasp who is making the idiotic unfactual comments. I’ll give you a hint later on if you can’t figure it all out.

      • cawmun cents

        Perhaps we should take a progressive liberal democrat approach to this situation.
        Let us as United States citizens bring a class action suiit against China for inventing gunpowder…..that will solve all our problems,right?
        And even if it doesnt,it will give us funding to combat the conditions we have to put up with from years of firearms solvency.
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • eddie47d

        Now is that going off the deep end CC or what? I know you can do much better than that.

      • Flashy

        Thing is CC..you’d lose the suit. It’s not conclusive gunpowder was discovered by the Chinese… there is strong evidence it may well have been invented by the Arabs, and some hint of gunpowder use in India before it was known to have been used in China.

        The first known use of gunpowder for private weaponry outside the military use by the State was in Europe.

        Good luck in your suit…

      • cawmun cents

        Where do Fakirs come from?
        Why from India Flashman…….Do you know anyone from India?
        I went to college with a cat named Shakir.
        He made claims about india and their history…..I know that some of them are true…but I wouldnt count on all of them being true.
        You see,the Chinese first used gunpowder in warfare nearly a thousand years ago.
        There is no such reliable record of them doing so in India.
        Claims made by fakers,are rampant especially since many more people from India have come here to be educated in our universities.
        But I wouldnt go believing just any such claims.
        I know for a fact that Mongols used the stuff on the Arabs,which is how they discovered it.
        There are stories handed down by Mongolians that tell of how they used gunpowder to cauterize wounds and therefore were on the battlefield longer,having not had to be removed because of bleeding wounds.
        But you probably didnt hear about that sort of thing,because you likely dont have a 130 year old book to read it from like I do.
        You are a victim of revisionist history,like many of the folks on this site who think their college educators knew their cornholes from shinola.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little……
        Cheers!
        -CC.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      True Warrior; the cities with the most gun control and the most murder’s are lead by demo-rats, Flordia use to be on the list of States until they passed right to carry, now crime is way down there. They said it would be like the wild west but, very few people who carry have committed any crimes. Trayvon isn’t what people want those gun control nuts think he was, Trayvon (probably misspelled)? was the aggressor and he wasn’t just some poor little 12 year old seen in the pictures, he attacked a man that he thought his gangster rap idols talk about and he got shot for it, I would have shot him myself. If you attack me with intent to do me harm? One big mistake that won’t happen again.

  • cawmun cents

    Well written and well stated Mr.Crystal,I commend thee,Sir.
    There is never enough attention brought to bear about the causal conditions in these large inner city communities.Not enough focus is laid on the shoulders of the policy makers.
    Thank you for doing your part,sir.
    It has been so long overdue for a conservative voice to speak openly of these things without fear of being seen as politically incorrect by the MSM.
    Cheers!
    -CC.

  • Sirian

    Ben,
    Standby, legions of Utopians will jump on this one for sure!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      The libs who enjoy being slaves also don’t have the brains to know why people pack iron. I haven’t read one news report where a person with a CCL killed anyone this month, haven’t read any stories about old west gun fights. Texas is the safest state to live in, almost everyone is packing and yet no stories of shoot outs? One lady left her gun in her car and went to dinner with her parents and because she didn’t take it into the dinner, a idiot crook came in and shot the place up and killed both her parents, if she hadn’t left her gun in the car they may be alive today and the crook dead. In Colorado we have had nut cases that have shot up churches and killed Godly people, that won’t happen where I go to church I assure you. Have a good day Sirian:

  • http://Firefox John Golt

    To know “Gun’s” is to know Freedom and Peace. NO Gun’s, is to know Slavery and NO Peace! A Freeman can and Should own a Firearm. A Slave, can not and will be punished for even thinking about owning one. SLAVE or FREEMAN? You get to Vote for way you want to live. Vote for your Life, because it’s YOUR LIFE your Voting for!

    • Ted Crawford

      Well said John and Historically acurate as well!

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      Amen to that John Golt, Lets remain Freemen. Have a good day and good life.

  • Ted Crawford

    I don’t have enough information as to who was shot or who did the shooting, but from an historical point of view, I’m wondering if perhaps, the Progressive entitlement crowd isn’t, at least dimly, becoming aware that, no matter who wins in November the next decade or so will be marked with auserity! If Obama wins it will be extremely servere( by design, not necessity), even if Romney wins it woun’t be easy, and all of us( sounds like Ross Parott) will be impacted!
    Clearly the ones most effected will be the Entitlement group. They have, for generations in some cases, been used to doing nothing and recieving payment for it. If we are to recover, in this century, about 60% of those will need to once again, or for the first time, become productive, contributing members of this society!

    • Steve

      It’s good to have dreams about the freeloaders, but that’s all they will ever be, dreams.

      • Ted Crawford

        Saddly, I’m afraid you are right Steve!

    • 45caliber

      Ted:

      Sadly, I doubt if those 60% you are speaking about will ever become productive members of our society. I think that most of them would either become beggars on the street or turn to crime, believing that their victims OWE them for taking away their “free” entitlements. (And in that case, we’ll need the guns to protect ourselves. And it probably won’t stop until most of them are dead.)

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      Ted, the 1% pays 60% of the taxes, 30% pay none and the 10% are the middle class, that from the IRS and nother useless government agency. Never got a job from the 10%, have worked for and gladly for the 1% and wish them well, they didn’t get their riches off your back, they took a chance and invested, they got a education which helps. Those who talk about the rich like they were a bunch of crooks are the give me something for nothing crowd and that is who obozo appeals to, they are dumb, blind and ignorant and they are the handout crowd that is destroying this nation, go back home to mommy and cry on her shoulder for not kicking your butt into a good education.

  • http://omniv8 pete0097

    Funny, they forgot about my favorite Baltimore. Maryland as a whole has very strict gun laws and Baltimore has very high murder rates. It is so bad that they catagorize as many as possible as “Death by Unknown” meaning they know the person is dead, but they have no idea as to who did it. Last I heard, that catagory was as high as the murder rate. Generally, the victims and the shooters are young black males. They just don’t want the published rate to be too high so as to discourage unarmed visitors. In truth, they generally don’t shoot visitors.

    • Flashy

      And a short distance to the south in Virginia..guns are relatively easy to get ahold of. Ya think the bad guys of Baltimore are having any shipped in from Va. ???

      • http://yahoo gator

        really flasshy, when’s the last time you tried to buy a firearm in Virginia?

      • Opal the Gem

        Flushy knows nothing about Virginia it is just a convienent state to throw out there hoping someone will believe his made up “facts”.

    • eddie47d

      The few gun deaths in NY come from persons who brought or bought their weapons from the South. Most notibably South and North Carolina. The connection to deaths is very clear and NY which has gun control only has a 5.1 % murder rate as compared to Conservative Alaska which as I stated has a 20% gun death rate per 100,000. The article slams Chicago,Illinois yet Illinois is at 31% per population for gun deaths. That is far better than Alaska,Wyoming or Arizona which have loose gun laws. Do any of you ever ask why that is never brought up?

      • 45caliber

        eddie:

        The FEW gun deaths in NYC? I’d say they were worse than Houston – where 90% of the deaths are gangs or cartel members. And they come from NC or Virginia? Really? How can you tell? I know that Bloomers sent some of his spies there but that certainly doesn’t mean that most guns come from those states. Besides, the dealers there followed the law to call the FBI to get permission to sell to those people. Can it be that you don’t trust the FBI to give the right info? Perhaps they sold out to the gangs in NYC??

      • eddie47d

        Who in the heck is talking about the FBI? Besides NYC has 3 times the population as Houston and murder is down in both cities.

      • 45caliber

        eddie: First, where on earth did you get the idea that NYC is three times the size of Houston???

        Houston has close to the same population that NYC does – and it has more territory.

        Second, you were stating that the cause of NYC’s problem is that the guns were coming from out of state. But the dealers in those states are required by federal law to check your ID with the FBI. Are you stating that they are not doing that? Or that the FBI is not doing their job? That is why I mentioned the FBI.

      • eddie47d

        First of all the FBI might not have anything to do with it since those guns are arriving in NYC. Unscrupulous buyers and dealers aren’t going to bother with FBI checks. Even legal gun buyers can and do sell to a third party . Secondly Houston has a population of 6,127,000 including Sugarland and Baytown area. NYC itself is 8,175,000 and including their suburban areas it is 19,378,000. That is 3 times the population of Houston area.

      • Flashy

        NYC: As of July 1, 2011, the United States Census Bureau estimated the population of the metropolitan area at 22,214,083,

        Houston: Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown is a 10-county metropolitan area defined by the Office of … metropolitan area in the United States with a population of 6.08 million

        Source: US Census

      • Butch

        I HAD A GUN FOR SELL IN A OKLAHOMA NEWS PAPER. A TRUCK DRIVER FROM NY CALLED ME TRYING TO BUY IT. I WOULDN’T SELL IT TO HIM. THAT’S HOW GUNS ARE GETTING THERE.

      • 45caliber

        eddie, flash

        You forgot to include the Houston surroundings that are included in the NYC numbers.

      • eddie47d

        You sure love to nitpick Caliber and yes I did.

      • CZ52

        “Unscrupulous buyers and dealers aren’t going to bother with FBI checks.”

        Here is eddie trying to blame all gun dealers again. eddie the BATF checks ALL gun dealers and their records. Those records HAVE to be accurate and show the disposition of all guns that pass thru their hands. If there is any major discrepences the gun dealer is shut down and most times cannot get a new license to sell firearms. So, your unscrupulous gun dealers are a figment of your imagination or more likely a convient talking point to try and get more restrictive gun laws passed.

  • Hedgehog

    As a Canadian, I see things somewhat differently than you Americans do. I think you have missed the point of the Chicago exercise. That being, that despite draconian government action to disarm the populace, they (the populace) remain armed to the teeth. Instead of excoriating them you should emulate them. Find out how they remain armed in spite of government anti gun action and do the same. It is after all, your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, especially against your government.

    • Ted Crawford

      I’m uncertain in what spirit that was offered Hedgehog, but in any case a valid and wise thought!

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      Amen Hedgehog, hope life is good up north, enjoy your country from time to time, always a good trip. I agree, if the crooks can get guns then others should be able to also. I could go to a neighborhood and buy a gun within a few minutes but, you have to take a gun with you or they will rob you and not sell you one? LOL. Live well up north both you and your family.

  • Liberterian

    More gun control is not the answer to solving violent crime. The criminals and the nuts will always get the guns through the black market. More severe government is a profanity of our freedoms and makes us weaker people in the long run. Unarming the citizenry is not the answer. I live in a city with a very high violent crime statistic and not all the violence is generated by guns. An unarmed citizenry is fodder for the criminals, the cops are limited and getting more so; there are not enough to be there all of the time, you need to learn to survive. More intrusive government control like more forced religious morality doesn’t mean less crime or anything. An example is this drug war that consumes so much of our taxes, it can’t control nor limit the drugs on the street, nor curtail the violence that it generates. I have been in law enforcement over 30 years and the violence is growing but not generated only by possession of guns. Be a free individual sovereign citizen.

    • eddie47d

      More weapons in dangerous areas don’t make those dangerous areas safer either. That has been proven time and time again. The more guns that pour innto Chicago the more deaths that occur so it works both ways and effects different areas in different ways. Rouge dealers and gun runners don’t care who they distribute to and they keep doing it until they are busted.Such as those two gun dealers in Milwaukee. Many assume that gun control means gun confiscation which has also been proven to be far from the truth. Those on the right need to also stop coddling those peddling of weapons and take charge of what your perpetuate. You slow down and do your part in the amount of illegal guns that end up in crime infested neighborhoods. Which will also help those living there have a better survival rate. There is absolutely NOTHING about the gun question that is one sided. Never has been and never will be.

      • 45caliber

        “More weapons in dangerous areas don’t make those dangerous areas safer either. That has been proven time and time again.”

        First, who proved it? I’ve NEVER heard that proved anywhere. Second, it depends upon who has the guns. If the weapons go to the honest citizens, things get safer. If they go only to the criminals, then it may not be safer. We are talking about giving the guns to the honest citizens, not the criminals. There is actually a difference.

      • eddie47d

        Once again Caliber we aren’t talking about homeowners having guns to protect themselves and families. That indeed can make a neighborhood or home safer. More guns on the streets (where the majority of killings occur) do not make a community safer but more deadly. Most legitimate homeowners aren’t involved in street killings and wouldn’t have time to react (with a weapon) even if they did.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

        Only one time on earth that you will be safe without being armed. That is when Jesus Christ rules from Jerusalem for a 1000 years, with Him running the government there will be no fear of the government, because it will be a righteous government ruled by God come in the flesh and Holy. Weapons won’t be needed but, until He comes again I’ll keep my guns.

      • 45caliber

        eddie:

        You insist that the homeowner keep his guns at home. So when he leaves, he is a ready victim. In states like Texas that has a Concealed Carry Law, many do NOT leave their guns at home – and the criminals know it. So violent crime had gone down in this state and other states like it. It has NOT gone up as it has in areas like Chicago where only the criminals carry guns. So your argument is false.

      • eddie47d

        Your mixing state statistics with city statistics Caliber. Murder and most crimes have gone down in virtually all States and that has been publicized.In 2005 Texas had a higher murder rate than Illinois by a small margin. Did that make Texas a terrible state to live in? In 2011 Texas has a lower rate than Illinois 5% per 100,000 Texas vs 5.8% Illinois. In other words crime overall has not gone up in either type of state so that makes your argument false.

      • 45caliber

        eddie:

        Did you get your info from Huffington or from some other site? Perhaps you should check the FBI info. It is a little more correct.

      • eddie47d

        What does Huffington have to do with it?

    • 45caliber

      Liberterian:

      You said: “The criminals and the nuts will always get the guns through the black market.”

      I think eddie made your point when he said that “Rouge (sic) dealers and gun runners don’t care who they distribute to and they keep doing it until they are busted.”.

      But I don’t think that was his intention.

    • http://na Mike in NE

      Libertarian, thank you for your 30 years of LEO. Thanks for your excellent post as well. Common sense will prevail.

  • jim

    Gee with all the stuff like this going on in Chicago and you have the moron in charge there bad mouthing Chick-fil-A and other good things. Simply amazing the way these socialist idiots keep saying and doing things to have it come back and bite them in the butt. So if they continue to go after our guns then we only have ourselves to blame when they shoot us with them.

    • 45caliber

      jim:

      Keep in mind that Russia – under Stalin – was the liberal Utopia. They had a small group at the top that everyone else had to obey and who couldn’t be replaced by those at the bottom. Those a the top got all the wealth, all the valuables, all the women, and none of the headaches everyone else had. And if the common people gave them trouble, they had them shot or sent to Siberia for punishment.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      Jim, they can have mine, one shell at a time until they pry it from my cold dead hand.

  • Rob

    On another note, Ben. I do have a different Utopian view. I prefer brunettes, so it would have to be Sarah Evans with the drinks, and Sophia Vergara with the mini-gun… in the same attire, of course.

    • GiveMeLiberty

      For the record, with members like that, I want to join Rob’s Utopia!

      • Rob

        It’s official, two people agree. Thanks GiveMe..

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      Rob I like blondes myself, I guess that was the reason I married one?

  • brian anderson

    The key purpose of the 2nd amendment is to help protect ourselves against the armed forces of the USA. The Founding Fathers didn’t have hunting or crime in mind. The trial threat is and always has been our own government.

    • Rob

      Not only in the 2nd Amendment, but an earlier warning in the Declaration of Independence.

    • Pathfinder

      Please up date your data base with this……
      “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” [Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria's words of 1764]

      Jefferson absolutely had personal protection as well as governmental tyranny in mind when he crafted the DOI and the Bill of Rights certainly reflects that sentiment.

  • somebody

    This might be off subject but. sorry flashy but once you give up the right to defend your self any where you give it up every where. Just ask the man who is serving a life sentence for shooting two people that broke into his house. Ask the people of England about the promises made by gov they had a 40% increase of crime after they confiscated all hand guns. Even some in the parliament think that it was a stupid move now. But try to get gov to admit it yeah right like trying to get a consummate liar to admit any thing no matter how small a deal it would be.

    • 45caliber

      somebody:

      Several years ago, one of the English Parliment went on the radio and announced that he would sponsor any legal thing that the call-in people wanted. The one thing 80% of them wanted was the right to have a gun to defend themselves. His comment? “The people have spoken … d*mn them!”:

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      I took my two daughters to England, one was a universal cheerleader there to march in the News Years Day Parade. Which was nice for her, her sister and I stayed near Paddington Square and wouldn’t you know it we got robbed and the Bobby could only tell me how bad America and Israel were because we were armed, never did catch the crook, so much for gun control.

      • 45caliber

        Ben:

        You were lucky the Bobby even showed up. Normally that is considered a minor crime there and they don’t bother to take the reports since it ties up all their time. You are 16 times more likely to be a crime victim in England than here.

  • vicki

    The OP writes:
    “And, because guns are banned in Bradyland, crimes involving firearms are unheard of. Of course, in keeping with the logical impossibility of Utopia, no such place exists.”

    Let us for a moment indulge in the fantasy of Bradyland to see why it can’t exist even if it did. 230 lb musclebuilder who also likes girls. A lot. We call them rapists. Just how does Sarah plan on stopping Mr rapist in her utopia? Positive thoughts? Kind words explaining that she understands that he is only a victim of his desires?

    I agree with the OP. I think I prefer his utopia.

    • 45caliber

      vicki:

      Several years ago in England, a 290 lb man broke into the apartment of a 120 woman and tried to rape her. She used pepper spray on him and called the police. He was arrested and sentenced to 1 year in the pen for attempted rape.

      She was arrested and given 2 years in the pen for “using undue force to subdue an armed man”. After all, he didn’t have a weapon so she shouldn’t have used the pepper spray. (And, yes, the sentences are correct. She served twice as much as he did.)

      • Flashy

        45…..please enlighten us as to why the jury and sentencing in Europe means anything here?

      • 45caliber

        Flashy -

        Because a large number of judges, Congressmen, etc. insist that we need to do things the same way Europe does. Ginsburg insists that before she makes a decision on anything she checks laws in Europe on that matter. And she is only one. If Europe does something, it seems that within 10-15 years our government wants us to do it here too.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

        45caliber; you have to realize Flashy lives in a dream world, knows nothing about the real world and thinks we should join him in his padded cell, he can’t see what happens in Europe could happen here. Don’t wake him from his dream world, probably has a little wacky backy waiting to smoke to get through the day and then back to lala land to think up some other dumb comment.

      • eddie47d

        Your argument is toast Caliber that we will adapt all of Europe’s standard within 10-15 years. They abolished the death penalty decades ago. Last week the Norway killer (77 kids) only received a 21 year sentence. In Texas you get the death penalty for looking sideways. I think Norway is crazy on that issue but I also think Texas is barbaric and enjoys it too much.

      • 45caliber

        eddie:

        Sorry you don’t believe in the death penalty. I do. It is the only way we have to insure that the stupid government doesn’t release killers back on society. Further, it is the only way we can assure that the guards and other prisoners aren’t at risk from these characters. Frankly, I wish we could have the death penalty for a few other crimes such as sexual molestation (rape) of small children and torture. If you feel that Texas gives that sentence for looking sideways, feel free to come here. Otherwise, you’d best stay where you are.

      • eddie47d

        Some murderers do terrible things and deserve the death penalty while some incidences are no more than deadly accidents such as a wife killing an abusive husband. The death penalty shoud be extremely rare.

    • 45caliber

      vicki:

      Besides, in your example above, the girl would have liked the 230 lb. man and it wouldn’t have been rape. Free sex, you know.

  • Pathfinder

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” [Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria (1764),] Chicago proves the veracity of the message.

  • 45caliber

    Chicago still meets the liberal/progressive idea of Utopia. The libs are in power and are telling everyone else what to do and the citizens who might object don’t have guns to remove them from power. The fact that a number of citizens are killed or robbed doesn’t really matter since those in power aren’t among them. They are the ones in power and can make all the decisions. If those citizens disagree or don’t consider the city to be Utopia, well … that’s just too bad, isn’t it?

  • Freedom from gov’t

    Being that the citizenry that obey the laws greatly out numbers the criminal element when concerning the use of guns, it would only make sense that the laws that need to be changed deal with the few rather than the many. In essence having laws that restrict the majority of Americans rights because of the actions of a few only proves that the agenda is not against the criminal. If it were than the punishment for certain crimes would be made more severe to prevent or hinder certain activity from the criminal and not remove the rights of law biding citizens.

    • Pathfinder

      How about 20 or more years, with no parole, just for the use of a weapon / firearm;
      PLUS time for the specific crime. Think that would work?

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      Freedom from gov’t I agree with all you said. The people who have guns actually defend the gun control nuts. One town down south passed a law that every home would have a weapon in it, wow, put the police out of business, no crime. Flordia use to have a lot of shoting crimes, mostly against tourest, the crooks knew the plates of rental cars and that is who they went after but, after the carry law which includes visitor’s the crime almost don’t exist because the crooks don’t know who is armed and haven’t heard of any old west shoot outs, a big lie of the leftest slaves.

  • http://na Mike in NE

    Flushly and eddie(dumber than a sack of hammers), you both agree that the criminal element will always get their guns thru black market or whatever they have to do correct? If you don’t think that guns are neccesary for your well being then by all means, turn them in to whomever you deem more responsible than yourself to have. It’s a personal choice, not something the government has the power to enforce, yet. That was the intention of our founders and I’m sure they were right on target.

    • Flashy

      Mike…ever read anything i wrote stating guns should be made illegal?

      Try again.

      i have written that outside the premises of ones property, the packin’ of iron should be heavily restrained…normal and sane people don’t need a testosterone fix nor have to have an ego boost thinking they’re the reincarnation of Dirty harry.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

        Flushy, do you even have any testosterone? Your comments say other wise, does your boy friend know yet? I don’t need a fix friend and when I pack it’s not be be a man but, to protect me from those little boys who think they are men.

      • eddie47d

        Bennie must know alot about those “little boys”

  • http://na Mike in NE

    Flushly, I suppose you’re an expert on normal and sane folks huh? Dirty Harry was a movie if I recall, I’m thinking more of the real world that I inhabit. Restrain yourself if required, leave me alone, I ask politely.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Every year, around 13,000 deaths are gun related.

    FDA-approved pharmaceuticals, prescribed by a doctor, are killing at least, if not more, 113,000 Americans a year.

    This number includes only drugs given properly and under normal circumstances. This excludes drugs administered in error or taken in attempted suicides. When errors of administration are included, the death toll is around 160,000 per year.

    More than two million people each year suffer from serious side-effects from prescription drug. Yet we have a “war” on guns, and insist on stricter gun-control-laws. Go figure!

    Each year 106,000 to 120,000 Americans die as a direct result of pharmaceutical drugs.

    This has been likened to a jumbo jet crashing every day of the year. Why is it that the drug industry gets away with this, and yet continues to be one of the most successful and fastest-growing industry groups around? What is wrong with this picture?

    Clearly, guns are the least of our problems!

    • 45caliber

      Jay:

      The government calls it “acceptable casualties” or “corllateral damage”. In other words, they figure the benefits are so good that the deaths caused by this are okay. The same with vaccinations. Small pox, for instance, would kill up to 80% of a town when it hit but after they came up with the vaccination, they only lost perhaps one in a hundred. So that is acceptable. But many people do not consider that acceptable and refuse to take the medications. So – you’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t. But because of the acceptable casualties, I seriously doubt that you will ever seen anything done about it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.754 Benjamin Fox

      Jay, totally right and what about car death’s, do they want to take away our cars? No they support the car industry via obozo and the unions. Take away cars along with guns and melt them down and build carriages, opps, where do we get the horses? Then the greens will complain because of too much horse gas and droppings, makes one wonder about their education, forgot government run, socialist union teachers who don’t really teach but, carry the government propaganda.

  • Freedom from gov’t

    Just thought of a great example,thanx to Fox. Taking guns away from everyone because of their criminal use would be the same as taking away everybodies car because of deaths caused by drunken drivers…. get the picture?

  • 4204life

    Good article Mr. Crystal. The day they come to your door to confiscate, is the day they declare war against sovereignty. Remain vigilant and emphatically protect your unalienable rights.

    • eddie47d

      Right along with that you guarantee those same rights to those Chicago killers and hoodlums. You can be vigilant and have second amendment rights without being callous and even stupid.

    • Vicki

      4204life says:
      “The day they come to your door to confiscate, is the day they declare war against sovereignty. Remain vigilant and emphatically protect your unalienable rights”

      That day has come and gone. No real complaint by the citizens.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

  • Smithkowitz

    Why does everyone talk about extended sentences in prison for illegal use of guns? The BEST and MOST convincing punishment to prevent some of the numbskulls from picking up a weapon is: The Ultimate Penalty. It needs to be enforced in cases of murder, repeated rape, repeat hard narcotic sales and I am sure there are others we can add to the list. This FREE ROOM & BOARD on the Tax Payers backs has to end. When these irresponsible citizens realize the FREE RIDE is over, and their life is as well, Maybe they’ll wake up.

  • CAJUNMAN69

    Jeremy references a survey by the Vilonce Policy Center: my friend, this is the “Fox Guarding The Henhouse”. You would more unbiased info by using FBI statistics.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.