Where Are Our Representatives?
MCSM Firearm Owner Forum
By Fred C. Sebly
September 19, 2000
It was reported on December 8, 1999 that the Clinton administration
wants to file a class action lawsuit against gun manufacturers. The
reason? For the high cost of gun violence in public housing
facilities. This is completely outrageous! Only a dictatorship would
feel free to do such a thing. The administration tells us they want to
keep guns from getting into the wrong hands. As with many liberal
programs, this "sounds good" at first glance. Let's look at it a
little more deeply.
First Clinton is sidestepping the proper channels through our elected
representatives. Do we want to open the gates for a future president
to act in such a dictatorial fashion just because he thinks he is
doing the right thing? Where are the checks and balances? Where are
our representatives on this affront to our constitution?
Secondly, no lawsuit, or laws, will keep killers from getting guns,
knives, drugs, cash, sex, and the list goes on. Because of the absurd
nature of this scheme, I regard this as yet another step along the
path toward a total gun ban.
Want to reduce crime? Focus on the criminal and the punishment. It is
very simple, yet the Clinton administration has failed miserably in
this area. Since Janet Reno took over the Justice Department, criminal
prosecutions have dropped 44%. Where is the public outrage? There is
very little because the liberal media has kept a tight lid on it. A
half dozen people were killed in one Baltimore home on December 5,
1999. The murderers have extensive criminal records. If they had been
in jail, the killings could not have taken place. Or had the residents
been armed, they would have had a fighting chance.
The liberals tout the Brady Bill. But it is interesting to note that
there has been a total lack of prosecution during the past five years
of Brady background checks. 250,000 predators have been returned to
the streets by the same government that wants to "save the children".
Then when these released criminals commit a crime, it can serve as
more ammunition for the Clinton administration to further erode the
The current administration, liberal elite’s and the media are
constantly harping that guns are bad. Guns aren't bad. It is the user
who defines what a gun will do. With proper training, the average
citizen can effectively defend himself. With the government turning
criminals out into the streets in record numbers, I strongly recommend
that everyone obtain the proper training and then arm themselves.
Still skeptical? Read on.
Recently a major Washington DC newspaper ran an article comparing
crime in Maryland's Montgomery county and Virginia's Fairfax county.
They are solid comparisons because the economy, incomes, unemployment
rate, immigration rates, total population, demographics and proximity
to Washington DC are nearly the same. But the FBI shows that a great
disparity exists between them when it comes to crime. To save time I
will not go into the numerous statistics, however, let it be said that
rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, murders, and burglaries are
very much higher in Maryland's Montgomery County. What is the
difference you ask? The article went on to report that Maryland has
stricter gun control laws, but is more lenient on the criminal.
Conversely, Virginia has a right to carry (a gun) law, coupled with
fewer gun control laws. Face to face criminal activity in Virginia
represents the largest gap in crime statistics between the two states.
It stands to reason that criminals are afraid of armed citizens.
Another fact is that Virginia has a stricter criminal justice policy.
Virginia abolished parole for violent felons, instituted a
truth-in-sentencing law, pursues the death penalty, and the city of
Richmond incorporated project exile (Criminals caught with guns are
automatically sent to federal penitentiaries). These aren't opinions.
These are hard facts. Now what did Clinton say he wanted to do? He
said he wants to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Has he considered
tightening up on prosecutions and reducing gun control? Because this
indeed does work. Not convinced? Read on.
Some ill-informed folks say that poverty causes crime. During the
great depression there was less crime than today. And consider the
following as an excellent example: West Virginia is one of the poorest
states in the union. And like Virginia, it has few gun control laws.
Yet West Virginia has the lowest overall crime rate. I repeat. It is
dead last as compared to the rest of the country (World Almanac of the
Professor John R. Lott has done an exhaustive study on national crime
and gun data. From the book, the reader can deduce that, in essence,
gun laws kill. The numerous details and rigorous statistics abound in
his book: More Guns, Less Crime. In states, which adopted the
right-to-carry laws, crime took a nosedive. Those states report an
average of a 24% lower violent crime rate. Australia and England
abolished guns. The newspapers won't report this, but crime actually
went up. Criminals don't obey laws. One might ask himself this: If all
this is true, why does our government want to make it more difficult
for a law-abiding citizen to own and carry a firearm?
Clinton wants to keep guns from children. Children can not buy guns in
Maryland, or in Washington DC for that matter. Yet these two areas are
ripe with criminal activity. Will yet another law actually help?
Another way to view this. If making a law will prevent people from
obtaining something, why do illegal drugs flow into our cities?
Because criminals do not obey laws.
Guns are used in self-defense 2.5 million times per year. In most
cases, simply showing the weapon is sufficient to scare off a
criminal. Statistics are from Florida State School of Criminology
professor Gary Kleck. And according to Paul Craig Roberts, more crimes
are prevented by gun owners than by police. Guns are used to prevent 5
times as many crimes as they are used to commit crimes. If the
government continues to erode our Second Amendment, who will protect
This is not a gun culture. Rather there are some elements of our
society that represent the criminal culture. Among other things, they
use guns as the tools of their trade. We have many more guns laws than
we had in the past. And it is harder to obtain a firearm today. The
real problem? The press and the government are ignoring the criminal
while focusing on the gun itself. However, the root cause is not the
weapon. So, what is the government's real agenda?
21 children, under the age of 5, die each year from accidental gun
deaths. Considering there are over 200 million guns and 277 million
people, in this country, this is a remarkable safety record. There
are also 40 children, under the age of 5 who die in pails of water
each year (Both figures from the Centers for Disease Control). And
think of this: Over 4000 died from auto accidents in the same period
of time, 50 by poisoning; 213 died choking on food; and 150 from fires
they themselves started.
In a 1997 Justice department survey of convicted felons it was
revealed that less than 2% obtained their weapons at gun shows.
Criminals, instead purchase through the black market and by theft.
No more talk of gun control. We have more government encroachment than
anytime in the past and yet crime has not been significantly reduced.
With a continued effort of the government to demonize guns, it is
possible that there will come a day when only the government and the
criminal will be armed. I am not sure which one I fear the most. What
is wrong with our fellow Americans that they can't see what is going
on? Perhaps we are too soft and we just take things for granted. Our
freedoms are being eroded more every day. Soon it will be too late.
Perhaps it is already. I ask again: Where are our representatives on
Fred C. Sebly
Mount Airy, MD
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message
is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml