So when the Connecticut legislator passed the strictest gun control laws in the nation, the media assured us that they were responding to the disaster that happened in Newtown and the desires of the residents. I guess we should be grateful we were told anything, since the legislature also passed unprecedented censorship laws to keep Sandy Hook crime scene evidence out of reach of journalists. While they also said this was for the sake of the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre victims, they offered this excuse pretty late in the legislative process. Before that they just kept their plan secret as a testament to the health of democracy among these United States.
But while legislators claimed to respond to the security needs of the town, the residents are demonstrating that they have their own way of responding to the disaster.
“Newtown police have received 209 permit requests through Aug. 8, according to CNN, already exceeding the 171 permits requested in 2012. In 2011, the town received a total of 99 gun permit requests.”
The most obvious reason for this phenomenon is that, after having suffered a horrible attack, members of society want to make sure that no vicious psychopath is in a position to commit mass slaughter again.
However, the media doesn’t seem to want to admit that preventing crime or harm from crime motivates the acquisition of the means of defense. Rather, the massacre hasn’t caused the rise in gun applications, but rather the law itself has done so:
“The spike appears to be driven by fear of the state’s new gun control laws…”
Really? Did you interview a large enough sample to make that determination?
The story quotes one and only one witness, Nancy Ellis, who seems to say that the stricter laws make her want to own a gun before it goes into effect. But would she purchase heroin if a stricter prohibition was about to go into effect? Plainly, people already have a desire for a firearm and the law just issued an ultimatum so they don’t procrastinate.
Their other witness, quoted from the Wall Street Journal, plainly states that he wants guns not because a law is saying he can’t have one, but because he really thinks he needs one for personal defense.
Furthermore, this is a state law. So why is the story only about Sandy Hook? Have other townships seen just as much an increase in applications to acquire firearms? Nothing is said about that. Instead, the same story admits:
“The uptick in gun sales, or potential gun sales, following a mass shooting is nothing new. According to the FBI, background checks for gun purchases increased in Arizona and Colorado following the mass shootings in Tucson and Aurora.”
So there you have it. The earlier statement is false. People want guns when the reality of crime become more obvious and personal to them.
They want to protect themselves.