Derrion Albert's Death Being Used for More Gun Control

With highlights focused on the funeral of Derrion Albert, the victim of a severe beating caught on video in Chicago, I find it a bit disturbing that there are politicians and gun grabbing organizations calling for tighter gun control laws, in light of Albert’s murder and the violence in Chicago. Albert wasn’t killed with a gun. He was killed with a railroad tie and kicks in the head. Why don’t they talk about banning railroad ties for personal use? Even if they did, criminals would still use them, as by nature they follow no laws.

I would be horrified if someone tried to use the death of my son to push an agenda of something completely unrelated. There is no shame among those who are calling for more gun laws, either. Indeed, these are righteous individuals who are looking out for the little guy. Except when you ask them why none of the existing gun laws have been able to affect the rates of violent crime, and then they turn into people who call the NRA members terrorists, and accuse them of helping to perpetuate gun crime. (Reminder, Albert wasn’t killed with a gun.) And did they ever bother to evaluate these laws they helped push on the rest of the law abiding country? Undoubtedly, no. Rather, they think it’s not enough, and there should be stricter gun control laws. I’m sure the Brady Campaigners are having a field day prepping for marches, protests, etc. The Jesse Jacksons of the world are frothing at the mouth, and Obama is calling for a permanent ban on assault weapons… It would make sense if Albert was murdered with an assault weapon.

What good do they actually do, anyway? By their very nature, criminals don’t obey the law. It’s the reason they break them all the time, from drunk driving, to abusing children, to rape and murder. Thus, in Chicago, 90% of gun violence comes from gangs and other criminals. How many and how harsh are those laws in Chicago, anyway? It’s obvious they’re doing a heck of a lot of good, in that the murder rates still soar to record levels, higher than the levels in Iraq. The teenage murder/victim rates are as high as ever. Show me a criminal willing to get finger printed and FBI background checks, and show me a criminal who will willingly walk into the state trooper’s office, get his picture taken to get a license, so that he can murder his victim with a legally owned firearm- permit and all? The very nature of how criminals acquire guns, are illegal, not to mention it’s illegal for them to own guns, and operate guns, and use them against people; what gun law helped this situation?

Never mind that the CDC and National Academy of Sciences concedes they have been unable to document any cases where a gun law helped prevent violent gun crime. Oh, and so did the Journal of the American Medical Association- an anti-gun advocate. In 2007, the FBI even reported that those cities with the tightest gun control laws were the same with the highest murder and violent crime rates. The ludicrousness of the notion that tighter gun control laws will prevent people like Albert from needlessly dying, is astounding. What next? They murdered this poor kid by assault, which is also illegal. His death has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with violence in big inner city areas, among people who have no respect for laws, or other people.

Conversely, in Kennesaw, GA, an experimental law was enacted requiring the heads of households to have a firearm in the home for defensive purposes. That year, violent crime rates plummeted by 74%. It further decreased by 45% in the following year. What criminal do you know is willing to pick a battle with a person who would very likely over power the criminal? Criminals, in addition to breaking the laws, are most often picking the easiest targets- by their very nature. Otherwise they’d be for getting jobs, like the rest of the law abiding community.

What would happen if Chicago said, “Let’s arm the honest decent citizens, who stand in line for permits all over the country, and allow them to carry concealed weapons in public and in their homes, to defend themselves from that criminal element that own 90% of the violent crime…”? Facing the facts, police aren’t there to protect you; they write the reports after the crimes occur. The police aren’t perfect at catching criminals, either. The ‘error rate’ is the rate at which police shoot and kill the wrong criminal, and the police average more than 11% of the time. Citizens who are armed have an error rate of less than 2%, and are twice as likely as the police to shoot and kill their attacker. On average, 200,000 women use their firearms to defend themselves from attacks, and upwards of 3 million people use their firearms to defend themselves, each year. Just not in Chicago.

When Obama talks about assault weapons bans, liberals get scared of the mention and can’t be bothered with allowing people to possess these- even though they don’t know what they are. Hunting rifles are more powerful. Assault weapons bans only apply to semi-automatic guns, rather than automatics- which are what you see in James Bond movies, as there is an existing law regulating them. Assault weapons bans also only address cosmetic issues, which is why it’s known as the Scary Gun Ban. With a detachable magazine and a couple other cool cosmetics, you have an “assault weapon”. Take the cool cosmetics off, and you have an equally powerful and deadly weapon that doesn’t look as menacing to the liberals. Go figure. I suppose it’s a necessary ban; given criminals’ natural propensity to violate the law and acquire illegal guns, they actually use “assault weapons” one fifth of one percent of the time, while committing violent gun crimes.

It isn’t enough that liberals refuse to examine real data where gun laws, gun crimes, gun defenses and assault weapons are concerned. Now they’re using the murder of a young man, by complete thugs with zero guns, to go and try to restrict firearms further. When criminals commit gun crimes, the law abiding people get punished. Our right to defense comes closer to being nonexistent. I wouldn’t even think of living in Chicago, for anything, unless I was allowed something to equalize the playing field, because calling 911 and using a baseball bat doesn’t cut it. I don't appreciate the notion that I shouldn't be able to defend myself with the most effective means, either. But the issue about guns and their restrictions is being completely blown in the face of the real issues surrounding Albert’s untimely death. Chicago should figure out another way to deal with it's city full of thugs, gangs, and criminals, and stop trying to prevent people from defending themselves.