- Lawmaker says license plate readers a privacy threat
- Bryant not the first to feel impact of free agency rules
- State Roundup: Parents’ group calls for standardized test opt-out bill
- Hononegah Mack: ‘The best woman in the county’
- The tip of the iceberg: Human trafficking in America
- State Roundup: House passes proposal to fill current fiscal year budget gap
- ‘Hogs streak hits 4 as race tightens
- Neighborhood feel key for Rural on Tap
- TRRT March 25-31 | Online Edition
- State Roundup: Plaintiffs join Rauner on fair share case
Guest Column: Disarming citizens opens the way to tyranny
By Dave Willis
Following a rash of mass murders recently at the hands of disturbed people with guns, the liberals are falling all over themselves to get ever more restrictive gun laws in place. This pandemonium is caused by an emotionally driven, feel-good desire to do something, even if it’s wrong. We must be careful in the path we choose lest it lead not to a solution, but to exacerbating our already tenuous situation.
How, you may ask, do we know which is the proper solution to this rash of gun violence? To ascertain the correct answer, perhaps we could look at some history. If we see a common thread in cause and effect in various places, we can reasonably conclude that there is a dependable answer indicated by the data.
The liberals claim, without an ounce of supporting evidence, that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is the root cause of gun violence. Having said that, let’s look at some history — with supporting evidence — that may shed some light on that contention. First, we’ll look at the consequences of gun confiscation by various governments. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20,000,000 dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. The list goes on, but the pattern remains the same. Whenever governments want to disarm their constituents in the name of “safety,” it is ineluctable that overbearing governmental dominance will follow. If we’re not careful, it will happen here, too. The bottom line is that during the 20th century, 56,000,000 people were exterminated throughout the world following governmental gun confiscation.
In an Aurora, Colo., theater, and in a Newtown, Conn., school, criminals with guns were free to shoot and kill, with no resistance, innocent people who were safely tucked away in “gun-free” zones. On the other side of the coin lies a different story. On or about July16, 2012, two armed men went into a Florida Internet café with intent to rob, and who knows what else. A lone person with a concealed carry handgun was in there and shot both of them, preventing whatever evil they had intended. The press conveniently ignored that story.
The city of Kennesaw, Ga., passed an ordinance in 1982 that required every household to own a gun. The crime rate dropped 50 percent between then and 2005, and it continues to drop. In fact, with the highest per capita gun population, it has the lowest crime rate in the U.S., but don’t bring that up with liberals; they go ballistic.
So, there we have it, conclusive, empirical evidence that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is the fastest, most effective and dependable means of thwarting criminal activity. Gun-free zones and onerous gun restrictions in general contribute not to safety, as the liberals would have you believe, but to increased crime, destruction and heartache.
Irrespective of the level of gun restrictions the government places on its citizens, wrongdoers will always find guns. The single element that gun restriction provides is a safe haven for criminals. So, we must ask, to which group do we owe greater allegiance, the criminals, or law-abiding citizens? The answer to that is very clear to me. What do you think?
Dave Willis is a resident of Rockford.
From the Feb. 6-12, 2013, issue