I watched a national network news program last night and it was all about the gun and violence problem in Chicago. It railed on about the homicide rate and the violence common in the streets. the program emphasized and re-emphasized the problem of availability of handguns for gang-bangers and professional criminals. Not once during the broadcast did the commentator mention that Chicago already has one of the most stringent system of gun control laws on the books!
Here in Tennessee, Shelby County (Memphis) has the strongest anti- gun ordinances and is the most crime ridden area of Tennessee.
What does it take to get the message? The crime rate is highest where the gun control is the most stringent. No gun laws does not equate to no guns available. How can you use logic in a world based on such illogic?
What they are trying to emphasize IMHO is that it is our fault Chicago has gun violence,if not for the fact other states allow their citizens to buy and own firearms then their criminals would not have access to them.Except for all the LEO weapons misplaced and stolen every year.
Originally Posted by wjh2657
Gun control is a faith. They just 'believe'. Reason and fact does not enter into the process. My favorite tactic is ridicule. Humorous contempt for biased media eventually erodes their standing. Hopefully, as they contemplate their demise, they become real journalists. If not, unbiased sources of news will continue to grow and be successful.
Canadians have brutal gun control laws, and CCW is an impossibility, unless you're a threatened judge or prosecutor, or a Hells Angel who flipped. Fewer than 100 people in the whole country can CCW.
Five years ago, the Canadian media was overwhelmingly anti-gun, in favor of handgun bans, and so on.
Relentless letter writing by pro-gunnies have turned things around. Now, the anti-gun rhetoric in most print media is way down.
Even if your pro-gun letters are not published, a left-wing anti-gun editor has to read it. Our arguments are factual and persuasive, so quite a few editors have changed their opinions. It took several years of relentless letter writing, but now the only mass media voice still calling for a handgun ban and legal handgun confiscation is the far-left Toronto Star.
If we write reasonable, articulate, factual letters in frontal assaults to anti-gun rhetoric, eventually, our side will be seen as the reasonable one.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, It's just that they know so much that isn't so." RONALD REAGAN
Originally Posted by tiwee
Progress with the media in Canada is a positive development. Kudos all around.
Canada is a great country and a wonderful neighbor for the US. However, I am unfamiliar with the facts and statistics regarding crime in Canada.
If the facts are that people might be safer if allowed CCW then you are really getting nothing but the anti-gun strategy of the silent treatment when they tone down the debate. You get the perception of progress, ie the newspapers have dropped the anti-gun rhetoric. But nothing actually changes with regard to gun law. The anti-gunners will let you write letters forever, as long as nothing substantial changes. The silent treatment is an effective delaying tactic when pro-CCW people have a reasonable well stated position.
If CCW would not add to personal safety in Canada, then "anti-gun rhetoric in most print media is way down", is a reasonable position for the media to take. And the society is to be commended for their success in living together peacefully.
Of course, control of the issues allowed in the press while pretending to be unbiased is not a concept that I discovered. In my opinion it is and has been the most frequent exercise of media power since the printing press was invented.
Here's a quick summary.
Violent crime per 100,000 is significantly higher in Canada than in The U.S.
Violent crime is dropping in both countries, and has been for years. However, since the spread of CCW in The States and the tougher gun control laws in Canada, violent crime has been dropping thirty percent faster in The U.S.
Canadian firearms laws are federal. So the pro-gun organizations have to chip away at a huge edifice, so far unsuccessfully. It's much better in The U.S. where well-funded national organizations can apply legal and political pressure on local areas. Yet, the federal laws are administered provincially, so there is some provincial variation. For example, Quebec tends to go its own fascist way and no federal politicians have the courage to call them on it.
I'll take the US over Kanada anyday!
Mayor Richie Daley doesn't think we need guns. After all, it was his security personnel who caught the escaped Indiana convicts outside his summer home in Indiana. Don't you folks have security personnel???