Published DateTo the editor,
One of the difficulties with having an honest discussion with liberals is that they misrepresent, or should I say lie about, what their opponents say. James Veverka's comments on my letter of April 9, 2013 are a good example.
Veverka says I claimed that "2.5 million crimes were averted by gun toters" is a Clinton administration number. That is false. As I clearly indicated, the Clinton administration numbers were 1.5 million crimes prevented annually by "gun toters" (in Veverka's words). Here is the text from my letter that Veverka refers to: "Estimates are that between 1,500,000 (Clinton Justice Department number) and 2,500,000 crimes are prevented annually by armed citizens." (Note: There are numerous studies with estimates in this range.)
In typical liberal attack mode, after misrepresenting what I clearly stated, he claims that Fox and the NRA misrepresent facts, but he provides no justification for this opinion. He is certainly entitled to his opinion no matter how irrational it is.
I looked, but I have not found anywhere in the world where total gun confiscation has reduced violent crime. Generally, murders, occupied home invasions, and other violent crimes increase... and in some cases increase significantly.
As long as hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens can cross our borders annually and bring thousands of tons of illegal drugs, criminals will be able to get weapons if they want them no matter how many guns are taken from law abiding citizens ... making them defenseless.
President Obama claims that background checks have stopped two million people from getting guns. Like most liberal statements that are not outright lies, that claim is misleading. Almost all those initial denials were later approved. So they just delayed law abiding citizens from getting the guns they wanted, and the guns that some of them may have needed because of real immediate threats.
How many felons or dangerous mentally ill were prevented from getting guns? I don't know. But, in 2010, out of the approximately 80,000 background check denials, the Obama administration only prosecuted 44 people. In fact, under Obama Federal gun prosecutions are down 40-45 percent.
How are law abiding people harmed by background checks that delays them from getting a gun? If 2 percent of the two million denials stopped people who really needed a gun NOW to protect themselves, that would be 40,000 people prevented from being able to defend themselves at the moment that they felt most at risk from a stalker, an angry ex-lover or spouse or someone else.
I don't know the number of the law abiding people who were actually battered, raped, or murdered because their attempt to obtain a gun was inappropriately denied, but some were. Maybe 2 percent is too high an estimate. Maybe only 1 percent, 20,000 end up being victims because they could not defend themselves from a known threat. Maybe only half a percent, 10,000, a quarter of a percent 5,000, or maybe only one-hundredth of one percent, 200 law abiding people were prevented from getting the gun they needed to prevent being beaten, raped, or murdered.
As far as I am concerned if only 200 law abiding people became victims because of government hindrance, it is unacceptable. Government is supposed to protect us, not make us victims. Vice President Biden seemed willing to move heaven and earth to save one life ... well, he can start by fixing the background check system so it won't create hundreds of defenseless victims.
Veverka says that murder rates dropped during the 1990s. Great! That is part of a long-term trend. Veverka probably knows (but apparently is unwilling to inform other readers) that even though Americans now have about 50 percent more guns and about 100 percent more concealed carry licenses, murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault have continued to decline significantly since 2000.
I understand that politicians desperately want to pass some law so they can claim to concerned constituents that they are doing something. Less vocally politicians acknowledge that nothing they are considering would have stopped Newtown or Columbine or any other crime. Why do we want politicians to pass laws that may harm law abiding citizens just so they can create a false impression of usefulness?
The fact is that politician don't do a good job of enforcing current laws, and their failure is no excuse to pass new laws that won't stop criminals and may create more defenseless victims.
To stop crime, keep violent criminals locked up. Ensure that there are safeguards against those who have been adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill. And, to reduce the number of defenseless victims, encourage more law abiding people to consider, as many in law enforcement suggest, being prepared to defend themselves.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.