Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill in Senate today that mirrors the recently passed New York “assault weapons” ban, and expands upon the nationwide “assault weapons” ban which expired in 2004. Of course the term “assault weapon” was made up by anti-gunners, and has nothing to do with the actual firepower, or the actual firing of the gun. “Assault weapons” are guns that look scary, and the new bill will define them as having only one of a number of features including a pistol grip, “thumb-hole stock” or “bullet button”. Rifles of any kind are used in a few hundred murders a year. According to justfacts.com Americans use firearms to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes almost half a million times each year. The new bill would also create a national gun registry, limit magazines to ten rounds, and add handguns and shotguns to the 1994 ban, according to this Washington Times article.
The Clinton-era bill was not renewed by Congress after the Federal Bureau of Investigation and law enforcement agencies reported that it was ineffective in reducing crime.
But there is someone in particular who knows very well the need often arises to defend yourself. Someone who has herself felt threatened, and as a result, was trained in proper firearm use, and carried a concealed firearm. This woman is Senator Dianne Feinstein, and you can watch and listen to her explain this in the short clip below.
So apart from being a blatant hypocrite, Senator Feinstein is quite aware of the benefits of owning a gun to anyone who has been threatened. In introducing a bill to limit legal gun ownership, she knows she is putting people at risk, and people will die as a result of her efforts to reduce legal gun ownership, and decrease an individual’s ability to protect oneself and family.
And this is what is so frustrating. The people trying to take our guns away know that it won’t decrease crime, they know banning guns makes innocent people victims, and they know that legal gun ownership is not the cause of crime, but more often reduces crime. This is why pro-gun people are so skeptical of gun control, because we know it must be for a reason other than what they say. If the people introducing these bills actually cared about reducing crime, violence, and death, they would have programs training battered women with firearms. They would introduce firearm education and training programs in the inner cities so that helpless victims can fight back against gang violence, rape, and break ins.
The evidence is there everywhere you look, in every city that has banned guns, and every city that has lifted bans–take a look at some of the charts on justfacts.com and you will see the obvious trend. The murder rate in Florida was 3 murders per 100,000 higher than the U.S. average of 8 per 100,000 around 1988 when Florida’s right to carry law became effective. The murder rate dropped below the U.S. average by 1992, and continued to drop until 2005 at which point there were about 5 murders per 100,000 people, compared to 11 per 100,000 when the right to carry law went into effect.
In Chicago, the percentage of murders committed with a gun were on the decline to about 45%, until a handgun ban went into effect around 1981. A decade later 60% of the murders in Chicago were committed using a handgun, and between 2005-2007 almost 80% of Chicago murders were committed with handguns. Quite obviously the ban increased the chances of being murdered with a handgun. In case you think the percentage is skewed because overall murder went down, consider the fact that a decade after Chicago’s ban, there were about 5 more murders per 100,000 citizens.
In England and Wales the homicide rate increased after the 1968 gun control law, and continued to increase after the 1997 gun control law. There were under 8 murders per 100,000 people in England before 1968, and in 2007 there were almost 14 murders per 100,000 residents. Even in the cities where crime rates have fallen after a gun ban, the rate has fallen at a slower rate than before the ban, and at a slower rate than the U.S. average decline in crime. There is a wealth of information to support the fact that gun control increases crime; it could fill a book, but I’ll leave it at this for now.
The main point is that Dianne Feinstein and the politicians like her are hypocrites with ulterior motives for banning guns. What these ulterior motives are, is up for debate, but the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA should be a hint. Click here to read more about how Gun Control Does Not Achieve The Desired Effect, and more about Elite Hypocrisy on Guns. Also, check out this video of anti-gun journalists refusing to designate their home a “gun free zone”, and consider why someones might “need” an “assault rifle”.
[Although it is absurd to have to show “need” to exercise the basic human right of defending oneself, I feel that having an argument for when someone asks “why do you need assault rifles” can strengthen a pro-gun position by tearing apart every shred of anti-gun argument from natural rights, to lower crime rates, to never knowing when/against whom you are going to have to protect yourself. But just to clarify my position, I have no need to justify why I have the liberty to speak freely, why I have the right to protect myself, why I have the right to be secure in my house, person and effects etc. These are not “rights, but only if you can show sufficient need”; they are called “inalienable rights” for a reason.]