The false promise of gun control is at work in Jamaica.
Let’s see, if I do the math it looks like Jamaica’s murder rate is 12 times that of the United States. Jamaica closed 2017 with 1,616 murders, one of the highest homicide figures on record. I believe most of those murders were committed with guns, but whether it’s guns or knives or fists and feet one thing is clear: gun laws have little to do with the murder rate. In fact, Jamaica could probably reduce its murder rate by legalizing guns for law-abiding citizens.
I assume that won’t happen because Jamaica’s Michael Manley has fallen for the false promise of gun control.
In January, 2013 I said this about the false promise of gun control:
Nicholas J. Johnson, professor of law at the Fordham University School of Law, writes today, “What is plain and predictable is that Feinstein’s proposal illustrates the structural inadequacy of supply control policies that attempt a purely public response to an intensely private crisis.” This appears in his article Senator Diane Feinstein’s Gun Control Alchemy at the excellent Liberty Law Blog.
Professor Johnson details the folly of Feinstein’s proposal in all it’s nonsensical argument and shameful pandering to the emotional pain everyone feels by the horror of Newtown, Connecticut. Feinstein is attempting to outlaw commonly owned guns which will make her legislation unconstitutional under the reasoning of DC v. Heller, as well as wholly ineffective for bringing about whatever good may be intended. Moreover, her legislation will be positively harmful by making victims even more helpless and vulnerable. It’s simple logic that the government’s monopoly on force dissolves in those moments when seconds count and the police are 20 minutes away. Professor Johnson says it this way: “This means that in those critical moments when violence sparks, you are on your own.”
Exactly. We are on our own. Help will arrive too late. People will die in those seconds and minutes. Armed self defense is our own responsibility and no politician should be deciding which guns are good and which are bad, which we are allowed to have for self protection and which we may not.
A gun is a tool and it’s worth is judged by how well it works for the purpose it is intended, which is to stop violence. It doesn’t matter what it it looks like to some ignorant self-absorbed politician. The idiocy of the politicians is made plain by their obsession with the AR-15 rifle which shoots a .22 caliber 55 grain bullet. A lever action rifle using 19th century technology may shoot a more deadly .45 caliber 405 grain bullet and can do so accurately up to 100 yards with only iron sights. But it’s not scary looking to Feinstein so it’s not on her radar screen.
Feinstein counts on the support of those people who resist these facts and their implications. For them the solution is to just get rid of the guns. It is staggering that this group, which acknowledges the impossibility of deporting 12 million illegal Mexicans, believes that it might be possible or even desirable to eliminate 320 million guns spread across nearly one-half of the households in America. It’s not possible, nor would it be desirable. Violence existed before there were firearms. Then the strong ruled the weak. When clubs, knives, swords, fists and feet were the main weapons of destruction it was the most skilled and the strongest who held the advantage. Firearms gave the weaker and smaller a fighting chance. Mark Twain got it right when he said, “God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal.”
Professor Johnson is an anomaly among the professorial class, being so well capable of good sense and eloquent style:
Politicians of a particular stripe will find it nearly impossible to acknowledge this basic fact. They are aligned with a gun control movement that has continuously denied the need, utility and legitimacy of armed self-defense. This crowd has the floor now and will lead the legislative charge with proposals that are really a diversion from the core issue.
There is a real danger that we will undertake what is essentially a grand charade – a policy debate grounded on the premise that 10 versus 30 round magazines (and next time revolvers versus semiautomatics) make some crucial difference in these attacks. The vitriol suggests that Feinstein’s supply control proposals are a clear and obvious fix against horrors like Sandy Hook. Ultimately we all really know that is false.
A serious debate about the precise risk would involve detailed assessment of fictitious gun free zones. This has been raised first by the NRA, so there is a good chance it will be maligned by much of the media and dismissed by self-righteous public officials. But if we are diligent and press for substance rather than symbolism, there is some chance that this issue will rise up out of the rancor.
We will have to push through this. Because beyond this barrier most will see clearly that the core issue here is the exposure of helpless people against a twisted man (or boy) with a gun… any gun. Supply controls are no answer to this problem unless you eliminate virtually all guns. Only when you fully acknowledge that it is impossible to get rid of guns in America (and that the failed attempt would make things worse by sending a hundred million guns fully into the black market) do you see the substantive emptiness and folly of Feinstein’s plan.
Professor Johnson seems a man of 18th Century Enlightenment. He ends with this:
Senator Feinstein will get lots of opposition to her proposal: that it is an unconstitutional taking of property; that it irrationally treats semi-automatics more harshly than true machine guns; that is an unconstitutional application of the taxing power that grounds the National Firearms Act; that it attempts to ban guns in common use in violation of D.C. v. Heller; that it attempts to ban the quintessential militia weapon which seems protected even under a ruse non-deceptive version of Justice Stevens’ dissent in Heller; that it will drive the targeted guns into the black market, and; that it will trigger militant resistance.
The worst thing though is that Feinstein’s Grand Plan obscures the core question of how to protect the 7 year old in the classroom, with tired oversold ideas that mainly serve to mask the structural state incompetence that the progressive political class cannot profitably acknowledge.
You can read Professor Johnson’s entire article here.
Today the false promise of gun control rides on through the valley of death.