Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Pro-Gun Activists Go on the Offensive; Look to Counter Mainstream Propaganda

Amid the latest furor, caused by a shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, John Lott, author of the book More Guns, Less Crime, asked a most telling question. “Would you feel safer with a sign in front of your home that said: ‘Gun-Free Zone’?”

During a July 25 interview with this writer, Lott expanded on this notion.
“Guns were banned from the movie theater where that shooting took place,” said Lott. “So, law-abiding citizens obeyed, but the criminal didn’t. Obviously, these gun-free zones make it easier for lawbreakers to engage in this type of violent behavior, producing the opposite effect of what we want to see happen.”

“The bottom line is: If you wouldn’t put one of these signs in front of your home, why place them in front of movie theaters or schools?”

Lott illustrated another under-reported element of the story: “4% of Colorado residents have concealed carry permits, but none could have taken his gun into that Aurora theater. Why do we so rarely see news reports about how often these events take place in gun-free zones? The media refuses to do it. Also, these same people in the media constantly tell us how bad guns are, but how frequently do we hear good stories about the defensive measures associated with guns? Primarily, they want to disarm law-abiding citizens.”

Alan Korwin, the author of nine books, who has twice presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court and is a national TV guest, couldn’t agree more with Lott’s analysis.

During a July 25 interview, Korwin told AMERICAN FREE PRESS: “Gun control is a euphemism for disarming the public. This entire issue pits those who are pro-rights against those who are anti-rights. It’s not even a debate. The anti-rights crowd asks: What guns can we outlaw from private hands? They’ll talk about only banning one type of weapon, but once the bill comes out it’s 16 pages long and bans everything in sight.”

Korwin shifted the parameters of this argument: “We should be looking at the behavior and cultural side of this problem,” he said. “When I grew up, kids didn’t randomly shoot up schools. It was unfathomable. Yet guns were more available then. There was no paperwork and no FBI background checks, and you could buy guns via mail order. What changed in America? Kids used to bring guns to school for show and tell, plus there were high school rifle teams. Availability of guns isn’t the problem.”

Instead, Korwin insists other factors must be considered: “Imagine the irony of that Batman film,” he said. “Those people got to experience mass murder firsthand while waiting to watch gratuitous mass murder on a movie screen.”

Korwin turned his attention to demographics: “Here is what no one will tell you,” he said. “Of the 30K gun deaths per year, over half of them occur as elder suicides. It’s not a firearms issue; it’s a medical issue. Some 90% of the other half of gun deaths result from black-on-black murders in the ghetto. They’re gang-and drug-related. But liberals have a skewed perspective on guns. They won’t talk about how blacks are angry and hostile and own illegal weapons. They’re people without hope. So, it’s not about the presence of legal firearms, but a socioeconomic problem in the ghetto.”

According to Korwin, talking heads on TV bear much of the blame for anti-gun hysteria: “80 people die in car accidents every day, while 12 people died in that movie theater,” he said. “But the media is still obsessed over this shooting. They have a fetish and a rampant hatred of guns. It’s called ‘hoplophobia’—a morbid fear of guns. This so-called political problem is actually a medical condition. The anti-rights crowd is afraid that if they had a gun, they’d shoot someone. So, they psychologically project this fear onto everyone else. Because they don’t trust themselves, they don’t trust their fellow man.”

Korwin feels that more citizens should be armed: “Chicago and Washington, D.C. had strict gun laws, but it didn’t lower crime,” he said. “In fact, there’s an inverse relationship. When the public is allowed to protect itself, criminals are at a disadvantage. We live in a safer world now than when there were no guns. A perfect example is the reign of Genghis Khan. If all guns were ever taken away, the good guys would have to reinvent them. The most important purpose of owning a weapon is to protect and defend oneself.”

Korwin agreed with Lott in regard to gun-free zones: “They’re a cruel hoax,” he stated. “They don’t work, and it’s dangerous, reckless and negligent of those who promote them. In 1991 during the Killeen, Texas massacre, the restaurant where it occurred was a gun-free zone. A woman dining there intentionally left her weapon in the car because it was illegal to bring it inside. She could have stopped that rampage before it got any worse.”
George Hennard killed 23 people and wounded 20 more that day at a Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, firing repeatedly at customers, without fear, because every law-abiding citizen was required to leave his handgun outside the restaurant.

In this light, Korwin has proposed a Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act in Arizona, where any business that establishes a gun-free zone would be fully liable for the harm it causes.

Note:  Alan Korwin is a personal friend.  I believe he was misquoted int the article where it says that "Some 90% of the other half of gun deaths result from black-on-black murders in the ghetto."  It should have been 50%.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Two more have taken guns into Theaters. One in Westlake, Ohio and an atorney in New Haven, Connectuit. (spelled that wrong)