Jeff Hague of Ellendale is the president and legislative liaison of the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association.
This letter is in response to an Opinion by Mr. Peter Graffagnino (“With gun control, campaign funding is key”).
It seems Mr. Graffagnino is equating campaign contributions to the level of gun control that exists in any one jurisdiction. Traditionally, people contribute to the political candidates who are aligned with their views, whether conservative or liberal (which, nowadays, translates to “socialist” in most cases).
He mentioned one person, the now-secretary of state Marco Rubio, who apparently was confronted with his acceptance of campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association. That apparently had a causal connection to the horrible tragedy in Parkland, Florida. Is Mr. Graffagnino insinuating that the National Rifle Association’s belief and advocacy for the Second Amendment to the Constitution contributes to violence committed by a mentally deranged individual? That’s quite a stretch. Nice try, but no go.
Let’s look more locally. Delaware has enacted most of the gun control agenda espoused by groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, funded by Michael Bloomberg; BRADY United Against Gun Violence, again Bloomberg, plus George Soros; and the Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence, surprisingly funded by over $100,000 in grants from the state of Delaware since 2022 (according to the Delaware Open Checkbook). These groups contribute almost exclusively to liberal Democrats. Have the draconian laws passed the Democrats — actually liberal democratic socialists — made any difference? The short answer is no.
Mr. Graffagnino goes on to list various countries and their number of deaths by firearms. I must agree — the numbers are considerably lower in the countries he lists, but what is he leaving out? The first thing is that none of those other countries has a constitution or a Bill of Rights like we do. Those two documents are what separate us from the rest of the world.
As for gun control, the one example he gives is what Great Britain has done in regard to firearms. He is correct — it has pretty much banned private ownership of handguns but has also severely restricted the possession of rifles and shotguns. Has that lowered gun deaths? Sure, but the more important question is what have those and other measures the country has taken done to the overall crime rate? The primary reason for most of the gun control in Great Britain is cultural not legal. Since the U.K. began banning the possession of guns, the crime rate has actually risen. Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the U.K. has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. According to gunfacts.info, the U.K. also has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe.
I could go on, but the point is that firearm availability is not the prime indicator in the rate of violent crime. One must take into account other factors, such as the amount of drug activity, homelessness, gang activity, economic factors, education and many other social indicators.
As I have said many times, it is not the object that is the problem, whether the object is a firearm, knife, golf club or take your pick. It is the person behind the object. Until legislators deal with the person, violent crime will not go down. For instance, here in Delaware, the attorney general drops an average of 78% of charges for persons prohibited from possessing deadly weapons and also persons prohibited from possessing firearms/ammunition. In addition, 80% of charges for possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony were dropped. And here’s the most egregious example: Ninety-four percent of charges for persons in possession of a handgun/drugs were dropped.
There is also the serious problem of people who are charged with weapons-related offenses being released on minimal or no bail. These types of actions by the state do nothing to deter violent crime. As I have also said, people in jail do not commit more crimes on the street.
I hope Mr. Graffagnino has seen the reports that homicides are at their lowest levels since around 1900, though I would be suspect of the data prior to about 1960. What I would say, however, is that overall violent crime and property crime rates are the lowest they have been since about 1960.
How does that track with the number of firearms that are owned in the United States? According to CBS, not necessarily a pro-gun organization, there are nearly 433.9 million firearms in civilian possession. There are 350 million people. So, it seems that, as violent crime has decreased since the 1960s, the number of firearms has increased.
That begs the question: If violent crime in the U.K. has increased since handguns were banned, and violent crime has decreased in the United States as the number of firearms has increased, does gun control really reduce crime? I don’t think so.
Something else Mr. Graffagnino fails to state is that, in the eight or nine states with the strictest gun control laws, the legislators and prosecutors are being bought off by the likes of Bloomberg and Soros. Those states are also controlled by liberal Democrats and increasingly by socialists and communists. Those states also have the highest violent-crime rates in their democratically controlled urban areas. It seems their political contributions have led to people being less safe.
The last thing I would say is that the right to keep and bear arms is protected not only by the U.S. Constitution but by our own constitution here in Delaware, and I am glad of it. At least I have the ability to protect myself, if necessary.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
