June 03, 2015

John Lott, Jr: Why Hamilton mayor's proposed gun ban won't work

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

Author and economist John Lott, Jr.'s extensive research shows that gun bans don't work. In many cases, the crime rate goes up after the ban comes into effect.

He explains why, and talks specifically about the proposed gun ban being touted by the mayor of Hamilton, Ontario.

PS: Did you know Pierre Trudeau applied for a "concealed carry" permit after he left office? Lott has the story.

 

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- it's been called "the political book of the year."

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-08-24 12:34:32 -0400
I always thought Morgan was a poor debater because he won’t shut up long enough for the other debater to answer the question, Now I just think he’s an ASSHOLE.
commented 2015-08-21 19:08:03 -0400
Mayor Eisenberger totally misses the mark when using Japan as an example of gun control success. You could gun-up the Japanese to the level of Plano Texas, and they’d still be the same law-abiding, productive people. Japan is a very homogeneous country where everyone is on the same page. That explains Japan’s low crime rate better than any gun restrictions. (BTW, Plano is one of the safest cities in the world). Here in Calgary, most the wonton gunplay is concentrated in the NE, and seems to involve recent arrivals from Somalia. In one case, a group was driving around in a pickup truck, randomly shooting at cars and homes with a small caliber rifle. Luckily, no one was hurt, but because this is how people pass their Saturday nights in Mogadishu, this kind of activity will continue to elicit yawns from our local media and politicians … until someone gets killed. At that point, the cry will go out to disarm the law-abiding.
commented 2015-06-05 09:23:52 -0400
Got arrested and convicted in Hamilton for concealed carry without a permit and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Police then decided to enter my apartment without a warrant, steal $2000 + in firearms and ammunition, my plants, put me in a jail cell for more than a week without the ability to go to work. Not everyone who carries a firearm “illegally” is doing so for criminal reasons, not everyone who wants one for self-defense will fire it aimlessly over some dumb thug feud. Long past time we be allowed to carry for self-defense.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4498677-hamilton-man-faces-more-charges-after-police-find-weapons-and-marijuana/
commented 2015-06-05 01:02:40 -0400
Since we all know intuitively what Mr. Lott is saying is correct, all law abiding, responsible Canadian firearms owners ought to read John Orth’s essay, “Self Defence: A Pro-Gun Strategy”,
http://diarmani.com/Self%20Defence%20—%20A%20Pro-Gun%20Strategy.html
“Canadian gun owners are slowly digging our own graves with our timid, apologetic approach to gun rights.” John Orth
…and act on it!
Your rights are like your muscles or your brain…use it or lose it!
commented 2015-06-03 22:07:28 -0400
Joan, you don’t need to apologize to me. I know that I live in a place where criminals have all the rights and the innocent have none. I’ve known it for years. Organised crime might be a bit over the top, but it does carry merit all the same. Ultimately, with the way things are, we are powerless to change anything.
commented 2015-06-03 19:15:17 -0400
Good points, Joan. Where I live, the gun is a tool, not primarily for protection from criminals, but for pest control, wilderness survival and putting food on the table. Of course, it could always double as protection from criminals as well, if the need arose. I think we can all agree that these are legitimate reasons for gun ownership, and we can certainly assume that the “Truth and Reconciliation” folks would NEVER suggest restricting gun ownership for aboriginals. It then logically follows that the only way to enforce a gun ban anywhere in this Country is to take away our freedom to travel within this Country. Either that, or return to the medieval system of walled Cities and feudal Lords, controlling all who enter at the City gate. It boggles my mind how so many simple minded, illogical people ascend to positions of power and authority.
commented 2015-06-03 15:17:10 -0400
I live in a small town north east of Toronto. Last week, at around 5 pm, the superintendent of a low-rise apartment complex by the river noticed a man looking into the cars in the parking lot. He asked him to leave. The man pulled out a pistol, shot the super twice, threw the gun into the river, then took off up the road toward my place.

This is not a problem just in cities but all over Ontario. It is an extension of the misuse of justice and policing resources to enforce violations of the law on behalf of organized crime. Disarming the law-abiding just complements that misuse of resources to oppress innocents in favour of what is, essentially, terrorist crime.

Someone needs to root out the corruption in our system that allows the misuse of police and Crown resources to protect the wealthy and powerful who draw much higher than average interest from their investments in organized crime that includes drug, arms and child sex slave trafficking.

Hamilton and, sorry Jason Weaver, also Beamsville and St. Catharines have long been controlled by organized crime. The corruption is province- and, I dare say, country- and likely even world-wide.

I’d carry if I could. As it is, if someone breaks into my home and I hit him on the head with my heavy flashlight, I’m likely to be criminally charged and forced to pay damages to the person who broke in.

I’d like the criminals forced to think twice that if they violate my rights under legislation that they just might be found at fault and forced to pay me instead of the way it is now.
commented 2015-06-03 14:51:40 -0400
How about if the authorities allowed the citizenry to actually defend themselves? How about if the courts took the position that someone breaking into a house is already breaking the law, so any injury sustained by the criminal is “just too bad”? How about if our laws allowed us to take back our responsibilities, instead of government being responsible for us? …oh, wait, the populace doesn’t want that
commented 2015-06-03 11:30:34 -0400
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the whole reason why gun bans don’t work, and Mr. Lott covered this quite nicely in the video, is that you are taking away a security measure from the law-abiding. What do criminals or criminal elements care about the law? Do people honestly think that a criminal gives a damn about what the law says? If this was the case, it would stand to reason that they wouldn’t be committing a crime in the first place. Hence the label, CRIMINAL. If people want to look at this statistically, look at Sweden’s gun crime rate. Why is that important? Because a majority percentage of the general populace carries a gun. Are you willing to confront someone, knowing there’s a possibility you will come under fire? I believe it’s more likely your self-preservation will kick in and tell you the answer. Guns are deterrents if used as more of a covert defensive threat.

And Vlad, I live in one of the cities you mentioned. I don’t want the Hamilton backwash, lol!
commented 2015-06-03 11:16:03 -0400
Politicians can spend their time either contending with city problems requiring much sweat and effort on their part or simplistic vote whoring. It is not difficult to determine which area many find most attractive.
commented 2015-06-03 10:00:52 -0400
BILL ELDER, I agree with you that such attempts to ban guns is more about ideology (So called “gun control” as envisioned by the Fabian elites who pimp this nonsense, is just camouflage for total civil disempowerment to make large populations easy to control under martial conditions.) than common sense.
commented 2015-06-03 08:43:34 -0400
Banning guns in Hamilton is a pointless gesture made to excuse the fact that Hamilton Police cannot control criminals in that city, and to gain some stature in the press for a mayor who is incompetent and bereft of any new ideas.
commented 2015-06-03 08:09:33 -0400
The concept that banning gun allowing the crime rate to go up is clearly born out in statistics, but as far as the anti-gun people are concerned it make no difference because the “ban guns” cry is an emotional response.

You cannot effectively counter an emotional issue with facts and stats. You are using the wrong tool. Try an emotional delivery of the facts.
commented 2015-06-03 08:00:48 -0400
Never mind the obvious – taking guns away doesn’t stop criminals from getting guns.
It’s a city – store your guns in Beamsville, or St. Catharines or somewhere else.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger, Mayor of Hamilton, is one helluva stupid fk.
commented 2015-06-03 07:55:56 -0400
Gun bans NEVER work because by their very nature they disarm the wrong people.
But then again we “gun control” and Bans are not focused at reducing crime or hindering criminals. So called “gun control” as envisioned by the Fabian elites who pimp this nonsense, is just camouflage for total civil disempowerment to make large populations easy to control under martial conditions.

As for this doofus mayor in Hamilton, the gun ban and all the anti-gun diaper-wetting is just a smoke screen to hide the fact he and his police force are utterly inept at controlling or diffusing the criminal element. Gun bans are a finger pointing exercise for cynical polticos.