In the wake of yesterday morning’s double homicide in Seattle, a Seattle Times reader left a question in the comments section that summed things up harshly: “How’s that ammo tax working to reduce crime?”
The dual slaying, which is still under investigation, came just one day after Newsweek reported that “Gun crime figures rise by 20 percent in U.K., children as young as 10 arrested.” But how could that be possible in a nation that banned handguns years ago, and is often used as an example by American gun prohibitionists as how this country’s laws should be crafted?
Seattle’s self-styled “progressive” government would have people believe that the gun and ammunition tax signed by ultra-liberal Democrat Mayor Ed Murray, currently being challenged in court by the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation, is an answer to violent crime. One look at Chicago, which is in Cook County, which adopted similar tax two years ago, tells how well that is working. The body count in Chicago is actually on the rise.
Two days ago, New York Magazine reported that more than 131 people have been slain so far this year in Chicago. That amounts to an 84 percent increase over the same period in 2015. So the question, to Chicago and Seattle authorities, is valid: How’s that gun control thing working?
Another Seattle Times reader left this comment; “I thought that I-594 gun law was supposed to prevent all this stuff !?!?!?” Initiative 594 was passed in 2014 after $10.4 million was spent by the Seattle-based campaign organizers, consisting primarily of wealthy elitists including Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve and Connie Ballmer, and Nick Hanauer.
After all of that, the measure garnered less than 60 percent of the popular vote (after backers said it was supported by 80-90 percent of the voters) and so far, only 50 people have been denied a firearms purchase under the mandatory background check provision. There is no evidence anyone has been charged or prosecuted, nor is there any evidence that people denied at the time of purchase didn’t somehow obtain a firearm through some illicit means.
Invariably, the argument then becomes: “If it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?” Ask the same question of any anti-gunner, but frame it around open and concealed carry, which the gun prohibition lobby would like to abolish. But if it saves just one life, which lawful concealed carry demonstrably has on numerous occasions, isn’t it worth it?
Tomorrow is “April Fool’s Day.” Today, one needn’t look any farther than Seattle, Chicago or the British Parliament to find them.
Got an opinion about this column? Share your views in the “Comments” section below.