Gun Control Hysterics

There is a time and a place for all things. There is a time for politics, and there is a time for nationwide mourning.

Liberals seem to forget this when speaking after mass shootings. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy threw all sense of human decency out the window on the Monday after the tragic Vegas shooting when he unveiled his plan to introduce new gun legislation.

Despite Murphy’s proposal of strengthening background checks, he eventually backtracked and acknowledged that such legislation may not have stopped 64-year old Stephen Paddock.

He later went on to say, “The fact is, 80 other people died from guns yesterday and stronger background checks laws should’ve saved many of them.”

Senator Murphy’s behavior is not anything new. We saw similar outcries after Sandy Hook, where a mentally distraught Adam Lanza stormed into an elementary school and senselessly killed both students and teachers.

Senator Murphy conveniently avoids the failure of tighter gun control laws in this situation when he chooses to slam the Senate for failing to adopt his gun legislation.

For all the times we have been told by liberal politicians to adopt stricter gun laws, we have rarely been given any evidence as to just where such laws have worked.

Have you ever heard any media reporter or politician provide hard evidence that tighter gun laws have reduced murder rates? Not just gun-related murder rates, but murder rates in general.

With the gun debate lasting for decades, surely there must be some instance of gun control reducing murder rates.

Unfortunately, of the common proposals in new gun control legislation, little of it is likely to reduce murder rates.

Senator Murphy proposes we introduce tighter background checks. Sadly for the Connecticut Senator, nearly 80 percent of criminal firearms are outside the realm of the “background check.” In other words, such a proposal only targets law-abiding citizens.

Another common proposal is to limit magazine capacity, as if criminals are going to concern themselves with the latest law on the books concerning their life of crime. In reality, such a law has no numbers behind it of reducing murder rates. Instead, the law would leave the homeowner at a disadvantage as he tries to ward off three robbers in a home invasion.

For all the concern those on the Left express for their fellow man, they are greatly disinterested in their fellow man when their policies fail them.

Why don’t we just ban automatic firearms? After all, no one needs a military grade weapon. Alas, automatic weapons were banned decades ago.

Are you any less dead when killed by a handgun as opposed to an AR-15?

Gun control not only failing, but also proving counterproductive, is a general theme crusading Democrats have chosen to overlook.

In England, armed crime and crime rates in general soared following restrictive gun control laws at the end of the 20th century. Following very restrictive gun control imposed by New York’s 1911 Sullivan Law, New York had a much higher murder rate compared to London, even though shotguns were purchased without questions in
London during the 1950s.

In Australia, crime rates were on the decline prior to the introduction of gun control legislation in the 1990s. After such legislation, gun related crimes did decline, but crime rates in other areas rose.

Why must we copy these countries?

What political pimps like Chris Murphy fail to talk about is the fact that guns are used to defend lives more often than they are used to take lives.

Research from the CDC done some years back put defensive gun cases at over 500,000 annually. And yet, one would never learn this from the media.

Are the lives saved by guns less precious than those taken by them?

It would do political crusaders well to realize that no amount of emotional marketing is going to make gun control more effective. The Crime Prevention Center some years back found that over 95 percent of mass public shootings dating back to 1950 have happened in gun-free zones.

It is one thing for emotions in politics to cost someone votes. It is an entirely different ballgame for emotionally charged rhetoric to cost the lives of loved ones.


About Sal

Sal is the founder and co-owner of New Media Central. New Media Central began as a political blog in 2012, and by mid 2016, the site became a home for independent journalists and political commentators. Email:
Sal is the founder and co-owner of New Media Central. New Media Central began as a political blog in 2012, and by mid 2016, the site became a home for independent journalists and political commentators. Email: