This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, December 7, 2015:
Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) reviewed the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and discovered that, contrary to views perpetrated by the likes of President Obama and the New York Times, gun violence in the United States is continuing to decline sharply as gun ownership increases. In 1993 there were seven firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans, but by 2013 that had fallen by 50 percent, to 3.6 per 100,000 population.
Explanations abound for the huge decline, including an improving economy, better police technology, lower alcohol consumption, and less exposure to lead. But the one that makes the most sense, to Perry, is the increase in gun ownership over the same period of time. Based on data from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), there are now more guns than people in the United States. Back in 1993 there were .93 guns per person. In 2013 there were 1.45 guns per person.
As Perry noted, “correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation” but it’s hard to deny the connection, especially when another report from the CRS makes it. As AWR Hawkins noted in an article last week at Breitbart:
After all the pro-gun control grandstanding and the relentless focus on how the so-called easy available of guns drives up crime, the CRS report shows that more guns – especially more concealable guns – has actually correlated with less crime.
The president doesn’t make the connection, or else doesn’t care. For if the correlation is provable, that means that efforts to remove guns from their legal owners will cause a rise in crime. He continues, instead, to push for removing Second Amendment rights from anyone on the government’s “no-fly” list, whether they should be on the list, or not. There are at least two concerns here: how easy is it for someone to have his name suddenly appear on that list? Ask the Fox News reporter who discovered, at the last minute as he was leaving on vacation, that his name was on the list. Ask Constitutionalists who think that precious document still counts for something: “No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Fifth Amendment.)
Following the Newtown, Connecticut shooting almost three years ago, the president asked his staff to find any “loopholes” they could find that he could close by executive order. After the Oregon shooting he upped the ante, demanding that they come up with language he can use by no later than December 14, the anniversary of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut.
At this writing, it appears that they’re aren’t going to make the deadline.
Enter the New York Times. To help things along, the editorial staff, for the first time in 95 years, published an anti-gun editorial on the front page of the paper on Saturday. Said Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the Times and the chairman of his family-owned New York Times Company (his family owns 91 percent of the voting B shares), the editorial was necessary “to deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country’s inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns.”
Instead of celebrating the freedom such ownership represents, the editors instead used words like “epidemic,” “moral outrage,” and “national disgrace” that law-abiding citizens can, by passing a government-mandated background check, still purchase firearms. Instead of acknowledging the real purpose behind the Second Amendment – to allow those citizens to defend themselves against overweening government – it attacks the weapons themselves, and NRA, and the Republicans in the Senate blocking additional unconstitutional infringements.
They are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.
[They and their supporters] place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.
The Senate Republicans:
America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday (when two unconstitutional efforts to infringe further Second Amendment rights were turned back by substantial margins).
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in [San Bernardino] California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership … [this would] require Americans who own these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
Of course, nothing was said about just how firearms would be removed from more than 100 million homes without starting a civil war. Nothing was said about how, if successful, such removal would turn the United States into a military dictatorship. Nothing was said that, in the meantime, crime would skyrocket, proving the inverse of the current connection between gun ownership and crime.
Happy to report, the average American citizen has increasingly rejected the New York Timesas a reliable and unbiased source for its news. Back in 2003 Rasmussen Reports noted that 46 percent of people they polled regarded the information appearing in its pages was reliable and trustworthy. Five years later that number had dropped to 24 percent, with 44 percent holding an “unfavorable opinion” of the Times.
Pew Research confirms the continuing drop in the Times’ credibility, reporting in 2012 that positive believability ratings for the paper had dropped another nine points since 2010.
Weekly Standard: White House: Obama Thinks Gun Control Will Deter Terrorists
American Enterprise Institute: Chart of the day: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013
New York Times: Editorial: End the Gun Epidemic in America
Rasmussen Reports: 24% Have Favorable Opinion of New York Times