Obama Gun Manufacturers Make Out Like Bandits After Mass Shootings - Breitbart
So Obama recently was talking on a podcast, and made the following statement.
“When Australia had a mass killing … it was just so shocking to the system, the entire country said ‘well we’re going to completely change our gun laws’ and they did, and it hasn’t happened since,” Obama said.
Now before I jump all over Obama on this, people have claimed I never say anything good about Obama.
Obama sings Amazing Grace during eulogy for pastor - CNN Video
Obama sang Amazing Grace at the church in Charleston, which I think is fantastic. I'm in favor of any promotion of Faith.
Nevertheless, his claims are garbage, and goals are bad, perhaps even counter productive.
First, what's he talking about? Back in 1996, Australia had a mass shooting, at Port Arthur in which 35 people were killed, and 23 more wounded. Port Arthur was a major tourist destination. A man named Martin Bryant went nutz, with an AR-15 and L1A1 rifles. You can read up a bit more from Wiki.
Port Arthur massacre Australia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
As a result of this incident, Australia passed the National Firearms Program Implementation Act 1996
National Firearms Program Implementation Act 1996
The law put in place a massive licencing scheme, and a buy back program that was paid for by increasing the Medicare Tax. At least they made it clear who was paying for these programs.
Before we go on, was Obama correct in saying they haven't had a mass shooting since enacting the law?
The Monash University shootings happened 2002, and the Hectorville Siege happened in 2011, and lastly the Hunt Family murders of 2014. All done with guns.
So contrary to Obama's claim, all the gun control laws in Australia, haven't stopped mass shootings.
A co-worker immediately pointed out that murder in the US is many times higher than that of Australia. Is that true? Yes it is.
The US has 4.7 murders per 100,000 people, compared to Australia's 1.1.
But I have a problem with that. The murder rate was lower to begin with. So it doesn't really make a point.
For example, say that you weight 150 lbs, and I weight 300 lbs. We both start a diet, and I start the Andy-Plan diet, and you start your diet. After 12 months, you weight 160 lbs, and I weight 250 lbs.
The left-wing would proclaim "My diet works great, and the Andy-Plan is terrible! Just look! He weights 90 lbs more than the other!".
Now a rational person would look at that and say, no, the other guy gained weight. Andy lost weight. Obviously the Andy-plan actually worked.
Similarly, when you just look at homicide rates out of context, the comparison is meaningless.
So for example, Australia's homicide rate is lower, that's true. But it was lower to begin with. For over a decade prior to the 1996 regulations, it was much lower.
But did it decline after the regulations? Yes, but again, it was declining before 1996.
As you can see, there was a clear decline in homicides overall, before the 1996 gun laws, and the trend continued with almost no noticeable effect of the gun laws.
If anything there was a slight uptick in homicides from the 90s, that lasted from 1997 to about 2002.
Results of the 96 Australian Gun Laws updated 2009 GunsAndCrime.org
Additionally accidental gun deaths increased after the regulations. Gun suicides declined with the trend, but non-gun suicides increased by a larger amount. Robbery, including armed robbery, drastically increased after the 1996 gun-control laws.
So, there is no rational measurement, in which anything can claim that gun control has been effective or successful in Australia. Obama's citation of Australia, is if anything, an example of why would shouldn't be trying to regulate guns.
But crime rates did eventually decline, right? True, but it wasn't because of gun laws, but rather because of drastically increasing the number of active police officers.
cfi116
However that leads to the obvious question.... why does it not work?
So why doesn't it work? I'm always bugged by this question, because the very same people asking this, never ask it about other obvious examples.
Did prohibition work? Why not? Why has the war on drugs not worked?
Ask yourself... exactly what law are you going to pass, that will stop a person who doesn't obey the law? How do you stop a criminal who don't follow the law, from getting a gun?
One popular answer is that guns are stolen from lawful citizens. The theory is if we don't allow lawful citizens to have guns, then criminals won't be able to steal them. This isn't true.
frontline hot guns How Criminals Get Guns PBS
PBS is typically filled with left-wing garbage, but Frontline is one of the few gems. In this show called 'how criminals get guns', they interviewed tons of law enforcement, and discovered... criminals don't typically steal their guns from lawful citizens.
- ATF agent Jay Wachtel only 10%-15% of guns used in crime are stolen.
- Most common way is straw purchases
- Corrupt 'home dealers' with Federal Licences
- Black market and street purchases.
A corrupt home dealer, is a guy who successfully get's a Federal license to sell guns, but instead of doing so legally according to the license, sells to anyone illegally.
And of course the black market, could be anything from guns smuggled across from Canada, or up from Mexico, or even off the docks at a port. In addition it could be weapons stolen from legal legitimate dealers, or even the suppliers directly.
Frontline went on to survey criminals in prison, and the results were telling.
- 56% said they bought the gun with cash.
- 15% said it was a gift
- 10% borrowed it
- 8% traded for the gun
- Only 5% said they stole the gun.
In this Australian youtube video, the reporter went undercover, and was offered guns and drugs in a matter of minutes. This was recorded in 2013. Clearly the gun control laws had no effect on black market weapons, just as the criminals surveyed by Frontline suggested.
But if guns are so easy to get, and no regulations are going to stop that, why not ban guns outright?
Again, why didn't banning alcohol work, or pot? Guns are not space age technology. In fact, they are rather simple technology, that anyone can make, and I do mean... make.
Today, making a lethal firearm is even simpler than ever before, with people needing almost no trade skills at all. For example 3D printers, and print you out a gun. We even banned the 3D prints for making guns, and instantly they were available on pirate bay.
People download movies, music, and computer programs illegally millions of times a day, but you think you are going to stop people from getting 3D printer guns designs?
The Pirate Bay now offering banned 3D-printed gun files - CNET
Granted, when people think of 3D printer guns, they think of the plastic guns that can barely fire a .22 round.
World s First 3D Printed Metal Gun Solid Concepts Blog
But now 3D printers that make metal parts, now have gun prints for them.
However, guns can be made without any high-end 3D printer. As I said, guns are not space age technology, and were hand made for ages. From the UK, I found this.
Farmer Paul Alton s homemade gun is found by police after his wife reports him Daily Mail Online
Now perhaps that seems harmless. It's only a 22 pistol. Then perhaps this from Aussie land is more your taste.
At the 1 minute mark, they show a home made fully automatic sub-machine gun.
Now what laws do you think you are going to pass, to prevent this? Metal Control laws? Perhaps screw driver control laws?
Every aspect of a gun, can made in your home basement, or garage.
Now at this point I go to the what I consider is the solution. I pointed out to my co-worker that we could solve the crime problem if we wanted to, but we don't.
His predictable response was, if gun laws don't work, because criminals don't obey the law, then why do we have laws against murder?
Laws are not there to prevent the crime from happening. The purpose is to punish those that commit the crime.
When I said we could solve this problem if we wanted to, but we simply don't want to, he suggest that I was saying gun control laws could work.
No, see the purpose of a gun control law, is try and prevent someone from breaking the law. The purpose of a law against murder, is merely to punish someone when they do break that law, not try and prevent them form committing the crime to begin with.
When we created a law penalizing rape, we were never under the illusion that the law would stop rape from happening. Only that there would be a massive penalty for those who rape.
See, if an individual is not worried about the penalty for murder... what penalty do you think is going to deter them for violating a gun law? How much more deterring is the penalty for violating a gun law going to be, if the penalty for murder itself, or rape, or anything else is not?
I go back to Singapore. They hang criminals. And shockingly Singapore is one of the safest cities, and tourist destinations in the world.
For example, how many murders did Singapore record in 2014? Zero. In fact, in 2010 they recorded zero murders. Their record year was 21 murders in a single year. In a city of over 5 million people. Compare that to Los Angeles, with a population of 3.4 Million, which had 250 murders last year, and that was a 'low year'.
How is Singapore doing this? Because they hang their criminals. People say that capital punishment doesn't work, and cite states with the death penalty, and yet still have high murder rates.
But it doesn't matter if you "have" a penalty, which isn't carried out in time. You have to enforce it, not just say it exists.
Cecil Clayton Murderpedia the encyclopedia of murderers
For example: Cecil Clayton, murdered back in 1996. No question about it. Several witnesses all agree this guy killed the police officer, and admitted it himself. It's a done deal, he did it, he's guilty. Yet he wasn't put to death until 2015. 19 years later? Really?
Compare that to Singapore:
Murder of Huang Na - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Huang Na, an 8 year old little girl in Singapore, murdered by Took Leng How. He raped, and strangled the little girl to death. The murder happened 2004, and being convicted the same year, after admitting to having killed her, he was hanged after a few appeals in 2006.
Is it any wonder why their laws are more effective than ours?
For you Christians, remember Ecclesiastes 8:11
When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people's hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong.
Wow, almost like G-d knew what he was talking about.
The sad aspect of American society, is that we want to have the rule of law, without any punishment by the law. But these are mutually exclusive goals. Without timely effective punishment, laws are irrelevant. Thus because we tell our government that they can't ever do anything to harm criminals... the only other logical move, is to try and stop people from committing crime, by stopping them from getting any weapons.
But that's impossible. Obama was wrong that gun laws prevented gun mass shootings in Australia... but he was also wrong that even if it did prevent someone from getting a gun, it doesn't prevent mass deaths.
In 1999, police discovered the Snowtown murders, where people will killed with shovels, being hanged, strangled, and some were dismembered, and placed in barrels of acid. No guns were used. 12 people slaughtered.
In 2000, an arson set fire to the Childers Palace, killing 15 international backpackers.
In 2009, Church Hill arson fire, killed 10.
In 2009, the Lin Family murders, where 5 people were killed with a hammer.
In 2014, the Cern Family murders, where 8 children were killed with knives.
What's my point? Denying people guns, won't stop or hinder, mass killings. You might perhaps change what method they use to do the killings, but the only solution for a murderer is death.
Again, for the Christian, this should be a given. Genesis 9:6 says:
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
I for one, am really tired of everyone defending criminals, and punishing the lawful. How does it make sense to law abiding citizens for having a gun, and yet defend the "rights" of criminals who rape, and murder, and brutalize the innocent?
But what about the innocent convicted of crime? When people say this, I cringe. If the person is not guilty, we should let him go. If he is guilty, then we should exact the punishment.
If someone is found guilt, but is not... that's not a reason to not punish. That's a reason to fix the justice system.
For example, we have a problem with witnesses who lie on the stand, and then years later, just say oops... I lied.
What does the bible say about this? Deuteronomy 19:18
The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.
And guess what the law is in Singapore?
Singapore Statutes Online - 224 - Penal Code
I'm not sure if that link works, but if you look up section 194 of the Penal code of Singapore, if a person falsely accuses someone in a Capital offense case, if the innocent is not convicted, or executed, the person giving false witness can receive 20 years, to life. If the innocent is convicted and/or executed, the false witness will be executed.
Almost like the Singaporeans read the Bible, and shockingly they don't have nearly as much of a problem with false witnesses.
By the way, Singapore also has a law that if a public servant omits evidence that is relevant to a court case, to either allow someone to go free who is guilt, or to convict someone who is innocent, they are not only removed from office, but can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
Let's fix the legal system, not make it even less relevant by eliminating all effective punishment.
And that's the RCC perspective. Be well.
