Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Supporting Opinions on "Gun Control" is Violence

Couple of items to share that back up my previous post "Gun Control" is Violence.
First, Jeffrey Shapiro gives us the data and first hand experience that, once again, demonstrates that "gun control" costs lives...
The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.


Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.

Mr. Shapiro is a former Washington DC prosecutor so his perspective should be valuable, yet it is mostly being ignored. 

But back to the story...   DC's gun ban quadrupled the number of homicides in the district and had a similar effect on other violent crime.  The Heller case, which overthrew the DC gun ban, resulted in homicides going back down to pre-ban levels.

What does this confirm?  That "gun control" makes people victims by enabling criminals.  Those who propose/support "gun control" are themselves accessories to violent crime!

The second story is from investment advisor Catherine Austin Fitts.  Ms. Fitts connects the timing of this manufactured gun crisis with the economy...
Guns protect honest people.  It’s a little scary, the timing of this, and I think a little bit obvious.  Gun control is a way to take away the financial assets of the honest hard working people.”
Folks, these are incredibly dangerous times.  Fitts says exactly what I said in my original post but now you have confirmation from a "qualified" source.  The rules of property and labor ownership are about to be re-written and we aren't going to like that one bit which is why there is such a strong internationally supported effort to disarm us.

Obama's Executive Orders announced today do little to advance disarmament--nothing more than platitudes.  He backed down from this fight and we all know it.  The reason he retreated is the strong opposition to disarmament and unintended consequences which are numerous and threatening the big Liberal plan.  Without going into too much detail, the rails would have come off and you can be certain the massive domestic intelligence network within the Federal government told Obama as much.

Now we wait and see what major events required civilian disarmament.

No comments: