This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Hillary Wants to go After Our Second Ammendment

For those who do not have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, here are some excerpts from their June 16 editorial page. Hillary is calling for a stronger ban on guns than Bill’s. His ban had a negligible impact on gun crime. So-called assault rifles accounted for about 2% of gun crimes prior to the ban, and the percentage of murders committed with rifles today (2% in 2014) is less than the 3% in the last year of the ban. Studies found no link to the ban and reduced crime. What did help some was better background checks.
 
Bill’s rifle ban also didn’t matter when it ended. The gun homicide rate remains about half (3.8 deaths per 100,000 people) of what it was prior to the seven deaths per 100,000 in the early 1990s. The media this week are full of stories about gun-death rates, without bothering to note that most of the surge is occurring in cities like Chicago that have the strictest gun laws. As for stopping terrorism, California is among the states that continued to ban assault weapons after the federal version expired. But that didn’t stop the San Bernardino killers, who used modified rifles that violated the law. France’s strict gun laws also didn’t stop the Paris assailants.
 
"By the way, how about enforcing existing law? Handguns account for more than 80% of gun crime, and the primary way felons obtain firearms" is through friends or relatives without criminal records to buy the guns for them.
 
The editorial ends with: "We’re sorry to have to devote space to this remedial gun-control education, but most of the press corps takes this assault-weapon ban seriously. No one else should."

7 comments:

USS Rodger Young said...

As an American, you should understand the 2nd Amendment has no room for crime rates or hunting. Lower crime rates and hunting are benefits of the 2nd Amendment, but not anywhere, in any way, the reason for the right that protects all rights. The 2nd Amendment is about a balance of power. Placing power in the hands of the common woman is a hedge against tyranny. Hunting and crime have no effect on tyranny. The left, with help from low information sheeple, has managed to move the argument to crime.

Blogger, you mentioned background checks had some effect on crime rates. You are wrong. Prior to 1968, as you may remember, one could order guns through the mail with no background checks. Few mass shootings, and little crime. Fast forward to the oppressive era we live in, replete with background checks, militarized police, terrorists, illegal aliens, etc and you have problems. Background checks have never had any effect on gun crime. In fact, background checks actually INCREASE gun crime by keeping guns away from those who need them (virtually everyone). But gun crime has never concerned me as the vast majority of gun crime takes place in Chicago, Washington, DC, Newark, Los Angeles and other victim disarmament zones. Take away 5 of the most active gun free zones, and the unimportant crime rate is lower than countries with strict gun control. What does THAT tell you Blogger? A bit inconvenient isn't it? LOL!!!

USS Rodger Young said...

More important than the minor issue of background checks that Blogger brought up for some odd reason, is the fact that ranchers in the United States are investigated, killed, stereotyped, labeled, harassed, and ridiculed in the liberal media.

Contrast that to an ISIS terrorist, a son of radical muslim immigrants, investigated twice by the FBI, and fired by the bureau of prisons. This ISIS gay terrorist is NOT ridiculed by the media, not labeled by liberals, not had his family subject to journalists recording conversations in secret and then broadcasting those conversations to make them look racist, and not stereotyped as "typical" Muslims.

Really? It is the norm to hammer white American citizens who step out of line in the least all the while giving credence to gay anchor baby terrorists who use evil guns to kill gays? See anything wrong with that Blogger? Instead of yapping about background checks, how about a post on crime committed by illegal aliens, anchor babies, and extremist Muslims (all muslims) living in the United States?

USS Rodger Young said...

Liberals are the least of our problems on guns. RINO Republicans, the usual problem, will cave on the gun issue if given half a chance. Thank God we didn't elect Romney or McCain as an anti-gun bill would emerge by next week. Guy Faulks was right when he said a moderate Republican (a liberal) is more dangerous to gun rights than Hussein obummer. Judging from the rush to enact gun control by Republicans, Faulks is prescient.

Speaking of RINOS, did any of you hear about the 20 RINOs who crossed party lines two days ago to vote with DEMOCRATS to ALLOW ILLEGAL ALIENS SERVE IN THE MILITARY? Funny how that inconvenient little fact was absent from the liberal news media, especially Fox News. Like the gun control thing, liberal Republicans will choose staying in power over American citizens each and every time. The shift to enact background checks by Republicans further alienates conservatives from the Grand Ole Party. Good riddance.

Blogger said...

RY wrote “background checks that Blogger brought up for some odd reason.” The reason background checks is included is that it was the editorial writer's explanation that studies revealed that any drop in murders could not be accounted for by Bill’s ban but rather was accounted for by better background checks. I was just quoting from the editorial.

USS Rodger Young said...

Oh, well the writer is wrong then. Background checks have never been proven to reduce crime. But they have been proven to decrease freedom. The availability of guns has been shown to decrease crime - a great book called "More Guns Equals Less Crime" is the definitive study on the subject. Liberal scholars (an oxymoron) detest Mr. Lott's book, but they've been unable to assail the body of work itself.

Blogger said...

Did you see where pussiefied reporter claims he got PTSD after shooting an AR 15? The DSM is explicit in identifying the trigger to PTSD–as exposure of actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual violation.

Anonymous said...

Blogger,

You're a good guy. No, I didn't see it. Absolutely amazing and sad. Reminds me of the idiots who watched James Cameron's "Avatar" and reported going through "Avatar Withdrawal" because they couldn't actually live in the Avatar world!! What a bunch of idiots. If Avatar was that good, then how come one NEVER hears of it on HBO reruns or in the media? The liberal agenda is pure hogwash, and even they must know it at some level. The reporter with "PTSD" after firing an AR-15 should be tied to a post and lashed severely. Leftists are pure stupid.