Posted on 10/26/2002 1:01:31 PM PDT by freeforall
Sniper Doesn't Stampede U.S. to Ban Guns
Contrary to the panic-driven hysteria that swept Britain, Australia, and other countries a few years ago following serial homicides by gun-wielding brigands, the U.S. shows no inclination to follow those nations' gun-banning examples. A poll for Fox News conducted by Opinion Dynamics reveals that only 14% of people believe tougher gun laws could have stopped the recent shooting spree on the East Coast; 76% think perpetrators like the snipers would always find ways around gun laws. —Interestingly, while twice as many Democrats as Republicans think tougher laws would help curb such incidents, the raw numbers aren't impressive in either case. Only 21% of Democrats believe the proposition, while 9% of Republicans do. —If this poll is accurate, it's positive news for those of us who understand that the Second Amendment is one of the deterrents to crime in the United States. It indicates that there's scant chance that public opinion will push Congress to pass more gun control laws. Let's hope not. Since Brit and Aussie lawmakers banned guns in their 1990s' emotional indulgence, serious crimes—especially murders and assaults—have soared. In the U.S., with one mild, recent exception, crime has been been on a decade-and-a-half-long downturn—even as gun ownership has gotten easier and more widespread. Golly gee whiz. You don't suppose the fact that people can readily defend themselves with weapons in the U.S. might have something to do with that? You bet it does. That's what the criminals themselves have told interviewers. —One of the more fascinating aspects of the Fox poll had to do with media coverage. Two-thirds of those interviewed thought the extensive, breathless (at times almost gleeful) media coverage encouraged the snipers. Probably so. Such personalities are known to enjoy the TV frenzy that their acts inspire. After awhile, each feeds the other. (Read Dean Ing's Soft Targets for insights.)
Racial Double Standard Do you recall what happened back in the '90s when the media got hold of the Oklahoma City bomb facts? Remember how they characterized the perpetrators as far-right, white Christian nuts who enjoyed running around in funny clothes, shooting guns, and drawing inspiration from "rightist" gurus like Rush Limbaugh? I remember it clearly. Interesting that what we're not hearing now is that the D.C. sniper suspects are far-left, black Muslim nuts who enjoyed running around in funny clothes, shooting guns, and drawing inspiration from "leftist" gurus like Louis Farrakhan. Nor did we hear much about the fact that one of the snipers (Lee Malvo) is an illegal immigrant from Jamaica whom the INS turned loose—probably contrary to law, in order to save jail space, although with the INS, it's often hard to discern rational motives. —Just to make my point clear to those who can't believe I'm saying what I'm saying, since this is supposed to be one of those subjects no "respectable" media member mentions: why is it that the media thought Tim McVeigh's white-radical-Christian status was important to their description of him but do not seem to think these snipers' black-radical-Muslim status is not important? Why do certain background facts about the snipers get a virtual pass among most of the major media, whereas the media shouted to high Heaven the comparable background facts about Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma bombing case? The media rant and rave against racism and religious favoritism, but this sure looks like racist judgment and religious favoritism to me: white Christian equals bad; black Muslim equals good—or at least neutral. TOA DAILY considers all facts about such perpetrators to be interesting and potentially relevant, depending on the context. They should be reported—consistently, playing no favorites. Anybody in the media editorial boardrooms paying attention?
War Room Guns and the Constitution Not long ago, one of my European readers—who resents gun control but thinks its an inevitable, worldwide trend (a typically gloomy-passive attitude over there)—said, "You just wait! As soon as you get some idiot truly terrorizing one of your cities, your Congress will do just what Britain and others here have done, and your Second Amendment will be history!" But, as we detailed in a story above, that doesn't seem to be happening. Indeed, the sentiment is heavily against anything like that. Americans haven't panicked; they haven't let their emotions destroy an important part of their Constitution and self-defense rights. To put it in the positive, unlike their European and Aussie kin, the Americans have kept their cool and reason has prevailed. Yes, there have been some anti-gun groups that have tried to stir things up with this sniper incident. I'm sure more will give it a—uh—shot—in the coming weeks. But at this point we can say to our readers overseas who are worried that the U.S., the last major planetary bastion of gun ownership rights, will surrender those rights to leftist hysteria: it isn't going to happen. Gun ownership continues to spread and, since 9/11, the sentiment here is growing that owning more guns is a darn good thing. The rise in gun ownership is especially pronounced among women, by the way. Oh, and here's an extra ding in the fender of political correctness: a lot of men over here think gun-toting women are sexy. What is America coming to?
—Once again—as I so often remind my foreign readers and a few, fainter-hearted domestic readers—the U.S. has surprised the world. Do not underestimate her resilience and the reservoir of citizen respect for her constitutional liberties. Now that I think of it, here's a suggestion: you ministerial-legislative types overseas should consider rewriting your own countries' constitutions—those of you who have one—to something that reads more like America's. Jingoist arrogance? Well, the facts speak. Truth is, ours is the better deal. For all the problems a minority of people here has with it, the U.S. Constitution acts as a strong, steady keel for the preservation of freedom. You could do worse. (Oh, that's right. You already are doing worse!)
Good heavens. It would appear intelligence is sprouting in the most surprising of places.
I agree with the formatting. I never read articles where there are 50,000 words in one sentence/paragraph.
Sorta makes ya dizzy.
How true this is. The OKc bombing had the Xlintoon administration throwing all the resources of the FBI chasing a few nuts out in Idaho and Montana instead of the real threats who first targeted the WTC in 1993. Anyone with half a clue could see that although the militia nuts were indeed crazy, they were disorganized and un-funded, while the Islamo-fascists were backed by some of the corrupt regimes in the Mid-East.
More food for thought, does anyone remember when McVeigh was caught there was speculation of a middle eastern accomplice. This was quickly downplayed and McVeigh was dispatched in relatively short order. Now who wants to make a bet that these two Islamo-fascists won't be executed, but years from now will be quietly released.
Well, not too many democrats have a clue what the Constitution even is!
5.56mm
The brutal reality is that - to almost everyone more than 150 miles from the Washington Monument - the "snipers" were just another freakshow true-crime story in another faraway freakshow place, so confined to that place that they might as well be on Pluto. Therefore, it didn't produce any public reaction elsewhere.
GUN REVIEWS free from ad-money bias - emphasizing woman-friendliness of tested guns!
I wonder if Kathleen you-know-what Townsend will continue her outspoken calls for gun control now that we know that the sniper is black.
She may -- blacks poll well for gun control. But she'll have to tread V-E-R-Y lightly.
Because violence by professing Christians is great copy--a "Man Bites Dog" story."Man Bites Dog" is a rule of thumb for judging the entertainment value of a news story. And it is directly subversive of the "first draft of history" self-conceit of journalism. As is the deadline which is the very definition of journalism, BTW . . .
Yes, and now facts are surfacing regarding John Doe 2 being a Middle Eastern (Terrorist/Fundamentalist Muslim) 'person'. Very interesting that this characterization put law enforcement and the public on the wrong trail. Wonder what would have happened if the truth had been told back then? No 9/11?
I would think that more people would buy guns to protect themselves with these types of loonies running around. According to the Al Qaeda training tapes, home invasions are another "grassroots" terrorist tool yet to be engaged. A loaded .45 is a great deterrent to that!!
Likewise, when one looks into the business end of a 12 ga., the dimensions assume the dimensions of a howitzer....
the infowarrior
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.