“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Those famous words are from Rahm Emmanuel, mayor of the murder capital of the United States, Chicago, and the city with the most restrictive and draconian gun-control laws in our country. Of course, gun laws only affect law-abiding people, because criminals, by definition, violate laws.
Twice, recently, the Journal Gazette exploited crises to promote its ongoing campaign against law-abiding gun owners, invoking the usual guise of public safety from armed criminals as the reason.
On July 8, in an editorial titled “Safety patrol/We all have role in encounters with the police,” the Journal Gazette exploited the murder of Indianapolis police officer Perry Renn by stating, “The tragic death of Officer Renn is yet another indication of the need for Indiana’s governor and legislators to shrug off the NRA’s spell and look seriously at adding some sensible gun restrictions.” Once again, the NRA is vilified as the cause of police officers being killed due to the lack of “sensible” gun-control laws.
No one really knows, at any given point in time, how many federal laws, state laws and local ordinances exist pertaining to firearm restrictions; a reasonable estimate is 20,000. It is ludicrous to promote the fantasy that, although 20,000 gun laws do not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns, one, or a very few, additional laws restricting guns will get the job done.
On July 12, The Journal Gazette again parroted the anti-gun mantra that reduced magazine capacity is the way to keep the public safer from psychotic killers’ rampages. The Journal Gazette invoked the Sandy Hook school shooting to excoriate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for refusing to reduce allowable magazine capacity to 10 from the current limit of 15 in New Jersey.
The federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 prohibited, among other things, manufacture of magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds. The AWB expired in 2004 with no documented instances that banning large-capacity magazines stopped any shootings or reduced violent gun crime. An exhaustive study by PoliceOne surveyed more than 15,000 current and retired police professionals across all ranks and department sizes, found, among many other findings, a resounding95.7 percent answered “No” to: “Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?”
To the question, “What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as ‘assault weapons,’ would have on reducing violent crime?” 91.5 percent answered “None,” or “Negative.”
Regarding more stringent background checks advocated by the Journal Gazette, 79.7 percent of the officers surveyed answered “No” to the question, “Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?”
The alleged “sensible” solutions to deterring violent criminals using guns fly in the face of reality and facts, but such will never deter The Journal Gazette and other mouthpieces of anti-gun groups of not letting a serious crisis go to waste.
Facts and reality be damned; there is a political agenda to be promoted.