So, CNN did a nice job this week of trolling gun owners. The news network allowed a dude by the name of Philip Alpers to write an op-ed, entitled, “Trump or Clinton, Stricter Gun Control Is Inevitable.”
Who the heck is Mr. Alpers?
Well, when it comes to being a proponent for gun-grabbing, he has credentials that would make even Mikey Bloomberg a little jealous. Here it is:
Philip Alpers is founding director of GunPolicy.org, a global project of the Sydney School of Public Health, which compares armed violence, firearm injury prevention and gun law across 350 jurisdictions world-wide. A member of the UN’s Program of Action on small arms since 2001, Alpers participates in the UN process as a member of the Australian government delegation.
To recap, Alpers checks all the boxes. Founder of an anti-gun nonprofit. Check. Member of UN’s gun-grabbing task force. Check. Australian bureaucrat. Check. University professor. Check.
You’ll recall that the land down under forced its citizens to participate in a national buyback program that pretty much eviscerated one’s
right privilege to keep and bear arms. Remember, when rights aren’t codified in a country’s founding document, they’re considered privileges which means it’s much easier for the government to put them on the chopping block.
Anyways, in the CNN article, Alpers made his case for why tougher gun laws are inevitable here in the US.
“Unique to the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is just that — an amendment. As with universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery and Prohibition, Americans are free to change an outdated law when they so choose,” wrote Alpers. “The solution to armed violence, America’s fatal flaw, is not unthinkable.”
Yeah, because owning and carrying firearms to defend ourselves is pretty much the same as denying women participation in government and keeping human chattel. Give me a break!
Anyways, Alpers is suggesting that we trash the Second Amendment and go the way of Europe and other countries that have instituted mandatory buyback schemes.
“In many other nations, improvements are well under way,” wrote Alpers. “Latin Americans, for example, suffer gun death rates to make your toes curl. For this reason Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia joined Australia, the United Kingdom and democratic countries in the Pacific Rim in mounting massive national disarmament and firearm destruction programs, each followed by fewer gun deaths.”
What’s humorous is one doesn’t need to look to hard to debunk Alpers claims. Back in March, NPR ran a story entitled, “Brazil Has Nearly 60,000 Murders, And It May Relax Gun Laws.”
That’s right. The story helped to shine a light on the fact that tough gun laws don’t translate to lower crime rates.
To give you an idea, in 2014, nearly 60,000 people were murdered in Brazil. Most of them were killed by bad guys with guns. That’s a lot of killing. This despite the fact that to get a gun in Brazil one must cut through a lot of red tape, such as: one must have a fixed address, prove legitimate income, have no criminal record, pass a mental health test, satisfy a training requirement proving proficiency, and provide ‘good cause’ to the government on why one needs a firearm, e.g. a police report documenting an attack.
In short, it’s a may-issue hellhole for prospective gun owners. Not surprisingly, many law-abiding citizens are not able to get the means to protect themselves (Brazil boasts a civilian gun ownership of 8 guns per 100 people).
In the United States, by comparison, we average around 8,500 gun murders per year. However, we also have 116 million more people living in the U.S. than in Brazil (U.S. population: 316 million; Brazil population 200 million). Plus, we have an average of 88 guns per 100 people.
Now, if you combine our massive population with our incredibly permissive gun laws and the fact that we have more guns per capita than any other nation, surely we should lead the world in gun murders. Well, we don’t. As mentioned, Brazil has close to seven times the number of murders. What gives then? Where does Alpers argument fall apart?
To quote Brazilian Congressman Edson Moreira, a proponent for relaxing gun laws in his country, from the NPR article, “Brazil doesn’t have a gun problem. It has a problem of illegal guns in the hands of criminals, especially drug traffickers.”
Bingo! The truth is that gun murders are not a product of the number of guns in a country nor the relative strength of a nation’s gun laws, rather they are a result of the number of criminals in a society. Therefore, the best way to tackle gun violence — or any violence for that matter — is to foster a society that (a) creates fewer criminals and (b) does an effective job of taking existing criminals off the streets.
Yet, people like Alpers will never concede this fact. Instead, they’ll continue to trumpet the call for eliminating one’s right to keep and bear arms, inch by inch.
“But as with the toll of road-related deaths, a range of long-term public health initiatives will gradually work in parallel to save countless lives,” wrote Alpers. “Gun buyer background checks, micro-stamping of firearms and ammunition as a crime-busting tool, smart guns that only the owner can fire — and yes, licensing and registration — must ever so slowly become the norm.”
A fool’s errand if there ever was one. The purpose of these measures is not to reduce gun-related violence, but to fail to reduce gun-related violence thereby priming the pumps for more gun control. For example, we know that the Clinton-era ban on “assault weapons” was ineffective. The CDC has said as much. So, why are anti-gunners still pushing for a renewed ban on black rifles if all the stats show it was ineffective? The answer is because that last one didn’t go far enough, in their minds. We need to do more. That’s their mission, to keep doubling down on failed policies until total and complete civil disarmament is achieved.
When background checks fail, we need registration. When registration fails, we need confiscation. When confiscation backfires, we need to eliminate pro-gunners aka patriots. Yup, that’s the endgame. To totally kill the autonomy and personal freedoms of the individual. How else can one explain their intractable commitment to ignoring facts, reason, and the Constitution?