Sunday, October 23, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Liberal media lies about gun control.
Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News
Published September 30, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.
Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.
Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."
The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."
But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.
Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.
Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent.
Similarly, in the year after the 2008 "Heller" decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.
It also fell more than three as fast as in other cities that are close to Washington's size. And murders in Washington have continued to fall.
If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008, the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court's late June "Heller" decision, murders have now fallen by thirty-four percent.
Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes.
Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%.
Just as with right-to-carry laws, when law-abiding citizens have guns some criminals stop carrying theirs.
The benefit could have been even greater. Getting a handgun permit in Chicago and Washington is an expensive and difficult process, meaning only the relatively wealthy go through it.
Through the end of May only 2,144 people had handguns registered in Chicago. That limits the benefits from the Supreme Court decisions since it is the poor who are the most likely victims of crime and who benefit the most from being able to protect themselves.
The biggest change for Washington was the Supreme Court striking down the law making it illegal to have a loaded gun. Over 70,000 people have permits for long guns that they can now legally used to protect themselves.
Lower crime rates in Chicago and Washington, by themselves, don’t prove that gun control increases murders, even when combined with the quite familiar story of how their murder rates soared and stayed high after the gun bans were imposed.
But these aren’t isolated examples. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise.
Gun control advocates explained the huge increases in murder and violent crime rates Chicago and Washington by saying that those bans weren’t fair tests unless the entire country adopted a ban.
Yet, even island nations, such as Ireland and the U.K. -- with no neighbors to blame -- have seen increases in murder rates. The same horror stories about blood in the streets have surrounded the debate over concealed handguns.
Some said it was necessary to ban guns in public places. The horror stories never came true and the data is now so obvious that as of November, only one state, Illinois, will still completely ban law-abiding from carrying concealed handguns.
Forty-one states will have either permissive right-to-carry laws or no longer even require a permit.
The regulations that still exist in Chicago and Washington primarily disarm the most likely victims of crime.
Hopefully, even the poor in these areas will soon also have more of an opportunity to defend themselves, too.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a Fox News.com contributor and the author of the revised third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010)."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/media-silence-is-deafening-about-important-gun-news/#ixzz1aluFx6QI
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Tax and spend Obama says he’s not to blame.
“We had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across Main Street,” Obama said. “And yet you’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place.” Abusive practices... Would that be like installing Czars in a representative democracy? Or how about spending more taxpayer money than any president in history EVER, and mostly on liberal groups in a reelection scheme? Maybe it’s raising taxes not once, but repeatedly on all sections of America in a recession? Could it be refusing to enforce the laws of the nation that you took an oath to uphold? How about labeling upstanding American citizens Nazis, terrorists, and racists because, unlike you, they understand economics? Perhaps declaring laws by executive fiat? Can’t see any of those Mr. Marxist in chief? I guess Barrack’s idea of an abusive practice is anyone who dares disagree with him.
More liberal math.
How many months of employment “gains” below population growth do we have to have before the media call BS on Obama’s 9.1% unemployment?
Even the Washington post says Obama’s lying.
“FACT CHECK: Obama’s claim on Republicans and jobs bill not entirely right” Wow, even liberal papers can’t avoid admitting how far from the truth Obama’s straying.
‘Second Stimulus’ Masquerading As a Jobs Bill
Republicans Say They Rejected a ‘Second Stimulus’ Masquerading As a Jobs Bill
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Ariz., talks about President Obama's job bill, Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2011, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
According to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republicans on Tuesday voted against a "stimulus and tax hike bill" that was masquerading as a jobs bill. And Republicans welcomed the opportunity to so do, McConnell added.
"If voting against another stimulus is the only way we can get Democrats in Washington to finally abandon this failed approach to job creation, then so be it," McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor shortly before the vote.
The $447-billion bill died on a 50-49 vote, short of the 60 votes needed for passage.
Every Republican voted against the plan, with the exception of Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), who is recovering from prostate surgery. Two Democrats -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana, both up for re-election next year -- joined Republicans in voting against the plan.
By proposing a second stimulus, Democrats have shown the American people they have no new ideas for dealing with job creation, McConnell said.
“Today’s vote is conclusive proof that Democrats’ sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn’t worked — along with a massive tax hike that we know won’t create jobs. So it’s hard to overstate the importance of this vote."
McConnell said anyone who votes for "this second stimulus" will have to explain why they would support an approach that failed the first time:
“The President’s first stimulus was a legislative and economic catastrophe," McConnell said. “Eight hundred and twenty-five billion dollars later, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs in this country than there were when the first stimulus was signed. That’s the clearest proof it was a monstrous failure. And it’s the surest proof we have that those who support this second stimulus are not doing so to create jobs."
Given Republican control of the House of Representatives, President Obama knew his bill would not pass Congress. Proposing such a bill, then repeatedly demanding that Congress “pass this bill” was a political stunt all along, McConnell said.
"Democrats have designed this bill to fail," he said, hoping that anyone who votes against it will look bad for opposing a misnamed "jobs" bill.
“It doesn’t seem to matter that this bill won’t pass, or that even if it did pass, American businesses would be stuck with a permanent tax hike. Forget about all that," McConnell said. "What matters most to the Democrats who control the Senate, according to the stories I’ve been reading, is that they have an issue to run on next year.
"This whole exercise, by their own admission, is a charade that’s meant to give Democrats a political edge in an election that is 13 months away."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Republicans of playing politics, too: "Republicans think if the economy improves it might help President Obama," he said. "So they root for the economy to fail, and oppose every effort to improve it. And they resist anything the President proposes no matter how common-sense, including this plan to create 2 million jobs."
Reid also accused Republicans of putting "the wants of millionaires and billionaires ahead of the needs of seniors and middle-class families."
Democrats aren’t giving up, however. They now plan to break up the bill in an attempt to pass its provisions piecemeal.
"Tonight's vote is by no means the end of this fight," Obama said in a statement after the vote. "Because with so many Americans out of work and so many families struggling, we can't take 'no' for an answer."
Earlier in the day, Obama told a union audience in Pittsburgh that any senator who voted no “should have to look you in the eye and tell you what exactly they're opposed to. Obama said the nays would “have a hard time explaining why they voted no on this bill — other than the fact that I proposed it."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)