-
Diagnosing Racism
April 27, 2010 | 18 comments
-
Let’s Get Original
February 26, 2010 | 8 comments
-
Doctrinal Candidates
March 20, 2009 | 21 comments
-
Fast and Loose
August 21, 2008 | 0 comments
-
Wii’s Company
August 14, 2008 | 0 comments
Special Report
More Handguns, Less Crime — or More?
The new, expanded edition of John Lott’s famous book promises to revive a heated, unresolved debate.
(Page 2 of 2)
Meanwhile, in a much shorter period of time — Dec. 14, 2008, to Jan. 11, 2009 — ten permit holders stopped violent crimes. So, without resorting to regression analysis, we can prove reasonably convincingly that RTC does virtually no harm and some good.
This methodology, of course, fails to count the crimes that RTC deters — the times when criminals don’t even attack, out of fear that their victims might be armed. But once one has shown that permit holders don’t commit crimes — and thus that granting them additional freedom doesn’t harm society — any deterrence they provide is simply icing on the cake.
DO GUN BANS INCREASE CRIME?
The Supreme Court is in the process of sorting out whether
Chicago’s gun ban is constitutional. As far as the Court is
concerned, the empirical question of whether gun bans increase or
decrease crime is tangential. But if the Supremes do strike down
the ban, Chicago and other cities that ban guns will have to
decide whether to try to preserve their bans in lesser form,
inviting further court challenges, or just give up and let their
residents own guns.
If it can be proven that gun bans increase crime, the decision becomes easy: Libertarian gun laws are superior in terms of both the Constitution and the desire to control crime. Using four case studies — D.C., Chicago, Jamaica, and Ireland — Lott attempts to prove that this is the case. The evidence he marshals is less than convincing, however, and some countries are conspicuous for their absence.
Take Washington, D.C., which banned guns in 1976. Compared with the nationwide murder rate, D.C.’s rate skyrocketed in 1987 — but that was when the crack epidemic hit the city. Prior to that, D.C.’s rate didn’t move much before or after the ban. It was about four times the national average from 1968 to 1974, fell to about three times the national rate by 1976, stayed there until about 1980, and ticked upward slightly before the crack wars came. Similar patterns appear when Lott compares D.C.’s rate with Virginia and Maryland’s, and with the average rate of the 48 other largest cities (the top 50, excluding Chicago, which also had banned guns, as well as D.C. itself). This is hardly strong evidence in either direction.
The results Lott presents for Chicago are no more conclusive. Chicago banned guns in 1983, yet its murder rate held remarkably steady for six years before and after that point — about three times the national average from 1977 through 1989. There was a spike in 1990, after which point the rate settled at about four times the national average — murder fell in Chicago in the 1990s, but not as much as it did in the rest of the country (most notably Giuliani’s New York). Again, there’s no evidence that the ban had any dramatic effect in either direction.
Regarding Ireland and Jamaica, Lott presents only raw murder-rate data, with no comparisons to similar countries. Both banned guns in the early '70s, and both experienced significant increases in murder thereafter, but because crime rose in many countries in the '70s, it’s hard to prove a cause-effect relationship.
It’s also worth noting that the international gun-ban comparisons Lott has used most often in the past — Great Britain and Australia — are downplayed here. Great Britain’s 1997 handgun ban gets a mention; Lott notes that gun-crime-related deaths and injuries skyrocketed from 1998 to 2005 and asserts that “rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes, and homicides have soared.” He does not note that last year, the murder rate for England and Wales hit a 20-year low.
Meanwhile, Australia banned most firearms in 1996, and Lott in the past has noted (pdf) that violent crime — not so much murder, but especially armed robbery — rose thereafter. But the country’s name appears nowhere in the new material or the index here, and for good reason: Homicide is at near-record lows there, and armed robbery has come down significantly since its peak at the turn of the century, suggesting that the previous increase may have been a natural fluctuation, not an enduring result of the gun ban.
If gun bans do anything to increase or decrease crime, the effect isn’t dramatic enough to show up in these overall trends.
THE REAL QUESTION
The
more-guns-less-crime theory is more than plausible, and it
retains the support of many academics. In the end, however, it
has become a distraction. In addition to being virtually
impossible to prove in a meaningful way, it has placed the burden
of proof where it does not belong.
Gun-rights supporters shouldn’t have to prove anything. They are on the side of freedom. Gun controllers, by contrast, want to restrict freedom, and thus must prove that their policies provide benefits that are worth that freedom. Whether the topic is RTC, handgun bans, buyback programs, assault-weapon restrictions, or registries, there is simply no evidence whatsoever indicating that to be the case. That’s one thing that Lott and the debate he inspired have proven — whatever the merits of the claim that gun control actually increases crime.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert VerBruggen
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/21/more-handguns-less-crime-or-mo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Melvin| 6.21.10 @ 6:54AM
This ill conceived notion that Americans who wish to provide their own personal protection are going to turn the streets into rivers of blood is nothing more than an Liberal Urban Legend.
How many times has the Brady Group and other anti-firearm organizations trumpeted, "Americans who exercise the 2nd Amendment Right are going to turn entire shopping malls into morgues."
This false prophecy has not happened nor is it ever going to happen. It boils down simply to this.
A person destined to do bad is going to do bad with whatever is at hand. It could be a firearm, baseball bat, knife, 2x4, even their bare hands.
A responsible law-abiding person will never do any of the things that Liberals pull out of detective novels, and plaster across the media in order to terrify those who wish to having nothing to do with firearms.
I personally carried a sidearm for many years in the Marine Corps and other than training I never drew it in performance of my duty.
Having a firearm is a responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly and 99.999% of Americans do an admirable job in conducting themselves in a safe manner when under arms, and do not deserve all this misinformation that is being made against them.
If the Liberals want to make society safer then keep the criminals in jail, but with Liberal judges and Liberal sentencing violent career criminals enter into a revolving door justice system that puts them back right onto the streets plying their violent trade
Americans cannot count on law enforcement or the government in general to keep ourselves safe, so we rely on ourselves, to protect our personal property, homes, and families.
I cannot count on the Brady Foundation, or the ACLU to come to my aid, when a violent criminal is kicking my door down.
So I beseech those who wish to severely restrict my 2nd Amendment right, please if you truly want to make our streets safer, don' expend your entire energy coming after me, because I am the one following the law, but go after the violent repeat offenders who are allowed to serve little or none prison time due to Liberal revolving door justice system in the Country.
They're the bad guys not me!
Alan Brooks| 6.21.10 @ 8:57AM
Just tell liberals:
"America is too violent to reduce law abiding citizens access to handguns."
They can't argue with that.
Alan Brooks| 6.21.10 @ 9:07AM
... even if they do anyway :(
Deadeye Dick| 6.21.10 @ 7:31AM
When seconds count, the police are only mniutes away!
KyMouse| 6.21.10 @ 7:35AM
Well said, Mr. VerBruggen and Melvin. Although I don't own a gun, I love target shooting, and have several friends and relatives who have defended themselves with guns.
One is a father who fatally shot an armed robber who attacked him as he was leaving his business. Another used his gun to scare off a man who was trying to lure his son, who has Down Syndrome, into the shrubs at a park.
Each of us has the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our property against bad guys. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" may be a cliche, but it's true.
Ret. Marine| 6.21.10 @ 7:37AM
The book mentioned was purchased by me in the spring of 2000. Now being that of a military background I can say that even then I never fired upon my enemies with the hate the liberals so seem to be saying about me and other responsible individuals. Responsible individuals take great pains before an armed conflict is entered upon with anyone. The laws of Nature says only when my life, someone close to me or my country are in peril, in danger of, or threats of life, liberty or the pursuit of our individual liberties being a happy productive individual. Therein lies the problem, the liberals don't have a problem with guns persay, they have a problem with the individual person with a gun. They know their arguments are nonsense, they know the satistics can be measured dependent upon how the question is asked, or how the data is formulated, or even to whom they are trying to please for the outsome but, the one thing they cannot stand for is the individuals right to protect themselves from the errors of humanity. They too rely upon the Armed Forces of these United States for the protection against their enemies, note the word "armed" is for a reason.
The Constitution is my permit, my instincts are my leverage and no matter how one might try to convince me otherwise, I realize the 2nd Amendment is for the purpose of saving this Nation against a tryannical leadership or individuals in the leadership that wish my kind would just lay down our arms and be sheeples like them, this is what they fear, not so much a gun, but a gun in the hands of a individual, they fear the fact that there are many of us out here that do not agree with their belief that the government reigns supreme over individual rights. If they were so concerned for the people who have allowed themselves to be victims, they would place individuals who use these tools against their fellow human being in a wrongful manner in the cross-bar motel and throw away the keys, it sure beats the solution I have for them.
AMENBRO| 6.21.10 @ 11:42PM
Semper Fi
The sound of the shell in slide loading in my pump combat 12ga. is all the prevention I'm affording. I believe even Alan Brooks could discern that undeniable sound.
Gerald Stephens| 6.23.10 @ 5:40AM
Well done Marine!
I would just like to add:
Self-defense is a natural law right.
Statutory law is not legitimate when in contradiction of natural law.
The Constitution is inviolable.
Always insure you have a liberal with you to act as a surrogate victim.
Old Soldier| 6.21.10 @ 8:26AM
I agree with your closing comments - I should not have to prove anything to exercise my Constitution rights.
The lag between gun bans and the upswing in violence is very understandable. Americans tend not to obey laws they don’t like – particularly unconstitutional retro-active laws. Back in the early 90’s I was living in Boston and drilling in the Marine Reserves. Months after the fact, I found that my target rifle – purchased and registered legally in MA – had been banned by the city. As a member of well-regulated militia, and aware that ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the Constitution, I disregarded the law. I assume many DC and Chicago gun owners did the same thing – until they moved out and were replaced by residents who complied with the law.
Even if I had decided to comply with the gun ban, I wasn’t going to turn in my $1,200 rifle – it would have been stored elsewhere.
It is also silly to think that criminals are going to read the news and immediately change their behavior. The upswing in violence takes place gradually as criminals find less resistance from law abiding citizens.
Brian Mc| 6.21.10 @ 8:45AM
My Colt Mark IV, Series 80 slumbers peacefully at the gunsmith's shop as I write this. I needed an ambitexterous safety, being a lefty. I can't wait to get it back.
My gun control law:
Commit a crime with a gun-life imprisonment.
Problem solved, if there truly is one. Obviously, too Draconian for those poor, little criminals out there...
Tim*| 6.21.10 @ 8:46AM
The Constitution Is Our Permit.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Rise Up on November 2nd .
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.21.10 @ 9:19AM
Mr. Verbruggen,
I find I must take issue with your thesis. "Right to carry" has The United States with the lowest "crime rate using guns"..................in the world......and in history.
All you have to do is plug in the killings done in wars engaged in by dictators...both among their own citizens...and including of course the victims of their agressions.
As I have posted here often though, I certainly recommend "long guns" (shoulder arms), as the best deterrent to same. (smile) First, because when upset and scared I am not the best pistol shot in the world.
We (native and naturalized) Texans pretty much adhere to the slogan:
"I would rather be judged by 12 peers in a lighted courtroom, than by 2 criminals in a parking lot."
In these days perhaps that slogan should be extended to include..."... or communists, (pardon the shorthand), in the government."
2Anglico| 6.21.10 @ 9:23AM
I find it interesting that the author finds plenty of critics of Lott, but his critics are taken at their word. Why no "background" on them? I bet a box of .45 ACP ammo Lott's critics are gun grabbers in disguise.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.21.10 @ 9:25AM
During the healthcare debate, many of its supporters erroneously claimed that it was a basic Constitutional right. One of these bozos even claimed the authority to force Americans to purchase this right was found in something known as “The Good and Plenty Clause” proving beyond all debate that this ‘legislator’ knows less about OUR Constitution than any randomly selected penguin.
THE FOUNDERS did think so seriously that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, was so important that they gave it its own amendment. So, if taxpayers must pay for universal healthcare because it is a fictional Constitutional Right, why are we not forced to purchase weapons and training for everyone?
In my neck of the woods, it’s quite pricey to own a gun. First there is the cost of the weapon itself. Next is the cost of the mandated training classes. Finally, there are two expenses with the actual license: 1) about $100 to the county sheriff, a founding member of the bury obummer truth squad 2 years ago, for background checks, fingerprinting and such and 2) a fee to the state department of revenue for the license itself. All together, in my case the expense amounted to about $800, which could have been abated somewhat by acquiring a cheaper pistol.
This outlay of cash might be quite daunting to many low income Americans and can be considered an infringement on their real right to keep and carry weapons. Now while I do certainly understand why those who make up facts to force us into bondage might wish to render us defenseless, I do not understand how they can be so cruel and callous as to deny gum’mint funding so that poor Americans can exercise an actual Constitutional freedom.
I recommend that tax cheat tiny timmy guytnerd beg China for more money so that we can pay for OUR schools to provide all students with weapons, ammunition, firing range time, and military grade weapons training with rifles and pistols. Surely nobody who believes the gum’mint should bailout the liberal media so that ‘journalists’ can continue exercising their First Amendment Rights, would wish to deny similar indebtedness so that inner city children can exercise their Second Amendment Right.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Go Galt!
Only 944 days to go.
Anthony| 6.21.10 @ 9:25AM
The academics can muse all day long about theories of the "Do carry -concealed weapons laws deter crime?".
Distilled to its most basic application; if a criminal intends to do me harm, he/she will not be on the receiving end of a treatise or Ph.D thesis.
Rather, it'll be back to the days of "show and tell". I'll show you my 9mm, if you promise not to tell, which assumes, of course, the adage, dead men tell no tales.
How's that for nuiance?
Rich| 6.21.10 @ 9:55AM
Author is obvious anti-self defense and anti-gun. Lets see ,if we could just abn all guns. Wait, there is such a place. Its an island and handguns are banned and so is self defense with weapons like knives. Its called England. What has happend since the ban? Well gun crime has skyrocketed and violent crime is up to 4 times what it is in the US. Just love those libtards theories. They work as well as the stmulus worked.
William Tell| 6.21.10 @ 10:09AM
Carrying a weopen is a pain in the neck. When I feel secure I don't carry. I only carry when forced to go in harm's way. I need the option though
Bruce | 6.21.10 @ 2:40PM
One of the most inane and obtuse arguments I've ever heard. Unless you walk around with a personal security staff and drive an armored vehicle when you leave your alarmed and fortified home ... you are NEVER truly secure.
Katladywa| 6.21.10 @ 10:22AM
If they repeat a lie; often enough and loud enough some ppl are BOUND to believe it. We NEVER went near our father's guns, having been told they he would teach us how to shoot when we were ready, and he did. But that was a different time.
Ryan| 6.21.10 @ 10:28AM
The left has just about ceded the gun debate, for now, particularly after 2000 and the sunsetting of the AWB. It's part of the reason Gore lost, and we haven't really seen a national issue on the matter from a major candidate in years.
Old Joe| 6.21.10 @ 10:43AM
No one in our family has a conceal carry permit since we all are careful of our situations and try to avoid confrontations. However we keep our homes and cars well armed. I have never had to brandish my weapons but both of my children have.
My son has had to show his pistol to discourage a group of young men who were trying to force him and his wife off a highway and another time he had to show his weapon to stop a very severe case of spousal abuse.
My daughter, who I equipped with a 12 gauge sawed off pump (legal length) (selected because I felt she would never have to shoot anyone since the sound of racking a round is know by every scumbag), has used her weapon 3 times. Once when minority teenagers were stealing her window air conditioner, again the next day when the minority teenagers drug dealing uncle came to question her about the previous night’s incident, and finally about 10 years ago when a minority male decided that he was entering her apartment to search for another minority male who he had an issue with and wrongly thought was in her apartment. They all knew that sound.
In summary, I firmly believe that conceal carry is a great crime deterrent and that everyone should have the right to protect themselves. One other commenter said it right, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”.
bennett anderson| 6.21.10 @ 10:49AM
If guns play a role in gun violence then camera's must play the same role in child pornography
SCM| 6.21.10 @ 12:46PM
And my pen is responsible for writing bad checks.
Ned| 6.21.10 @ 2:47PM
"Bad pen! No, no, no! Naughty pen!"
George S| 6.21.10 @ 10:51AM
This article, and the Lott study, are a waste of energy. The Second Amendment is not contingent on crime statistics nor do we have to justify the Bill of Rights against studies, statistics or anecdotes.
It is the trap set by all governments that intend to control the population -- divide by fear then regulate. The liberal excuse to curtail the Second Amendment has always been public safety. The Lott study is supposed to counter that. But this is the fight liberals want -- study for study shootout -- because it takes the issue away from the reality of the Constitution and into the theoretical.
Studies can be twisted and influenced by whoever finances them. Couldn't give a rat's ass about the conclusions of the Lott study or any of its follow ups. The Second Amendment stands alone.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.21.10 @ 12:12PM
Exactly! Our constitutional rights are not subject to any study.
Jeffry Pages| 6.21.10 @ 10:55AM
While I am familiar with the Lott book, it's merely propaganda for the right wingnuts! If there were no guns, there would be no gun violence! Can't you idiots get that through your heads? the good thing is that President Obama will soon tackle the gun question and congress will resolve it once and for all. You gun nuts better get used to it too. Our congress will pass gun prohibition legislation and it's about time! I for one am sick of all you nuts with guns running around in your camo pants with Sarah Palin posters in the windows of your pick-up trucks, which also need to be banned as they consume way too much precious gasoline.
Old Joe| 6.21.10 @ 11:10AM
Jeffery,
What happened? Did some conservative in camo kick your liberal butt or steal your girl friend? Did some redneck in a pickup accidently cut your hybred car off in traffic? You have serious problems and should seek help.
AMENBRO| 6.21.10 @ 11:46PM
Like most pukes below the age of 30/35 now days he's just more in touch with his feminine side YAWL.
Ryan| 6.21.10 @ 11:18AM
I'm starting to think ol' Jeffry is a nice Strawman.
AMENBRO| 6.21.10 @ 11:54PM
Hairless man!
Jeffry, who the F*&k calls themselves Jeffry; unless they are a PUSSSSS_AYE . I'd only let my Ma call me Jeffry. AND not in front of any damn body.
I bet he admired and practices OBAMMIE BAM's pitchin style. Has a pair o jeans just like the ones MICHELLE makes Hussein wear.
Anyway he weekly NAIRS ; total hairless package, wax substitute. Alan Brooks has to pay a 100 to watch.
Tim*| 6.21.10 @ 12:21PM
Jeffry wields a satirical keyboard.
Harry the Horrible| 6.21.10 @ 12:25PM
Are you a blackbelt or a streetfighter? Do you know how to use a knife or machete?
There are violent men who are all these things and willing to use them to take what they want.
Gun violence? Given the alternatives, I'm all for it.
Be not afraid of any man,
No matter what his size.
When danger threatens, call on me.
And I will equalize.
JayPitsby| 6.21.10 @ 12:53PM
DON'T FEED THE GRIMEY LITTLE TROLLS LIKE LITTLE JEFFRY. THEY WASTE YOUR TIME AND ENERGY AND SERVE NO REAL PURPOSE OTHER THAN PROVIDE MASTURBATION FANTASIES FOR THE LEFT!
AMENBRO| 6.21.10 @ 11:58PM
You're right!!
His wife probable does the wheelin-n-dealin while JEFFFFRY is buns up kneelin.
Jeffry hows your knee & elbow burns doin????
AMENBRO| 6.22.10 @ 12:01AM
ALAN pays a grand for his turn.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.21.10 @ 1:07PM
The gun control issue was settled once and for all on 12/15/1791. I may be a nut in camo pants with a Palin for President poster in my truck hanging from the gun rack, but I am smart enough to know what “shall not be infringed” means in plain English. I think that neither beavisbud nor kongress is. The A Gee certainly is not.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Go Galt!
Only 944 days to go.
Anthony| 6.21.10 @ 2:49PM
Where do I get my Sarah Palin poster? My pick up needs a pick me up.
Bram| 6.21.10 @ 3:23PM
In the good old days before guns we all lived in peace and harmony. Charitable organizations such as the Vikings, the Huns, the Mongol hordes, and the Teutonic Knights traveled around helping people - because they didn't have evil guns.
GavInTucson| 6.22.10 @ 11:49PM
LMOA!!!
Rmm| 6.21.10 @ 7:49PM
JP,
You really don't get it do you. This is typical foaming-at-the-mouth liberal boiler plate think tank baloney. For one true gun owners do not " run around in camo pants with Sarah Palin posters." At best, gun owners would never allow AH's like you to be aware that they are just that.
You are all bark and no bite.
Petronius| 6.22.10 @ 8:59AM
The UK did that and assaults rose almost 3000%; burglary more than double that. And sidearms can still be obtained illegally there for 500 to 1000 quid. The places that have the least violent crime are those where honest people can legally shoot back. But the right to personal self defense is not the purview of any government or the cowards residing in our communities who want to see their betters robbed and murdered for spite, as if controlling circumstances like access to weaponry would preclude violent behavior. Those who demand that the U.S. Government run our country like a nursery school should leave it. This country is for adults.
GavInTucson| 6.22.10 @ 11:47PM
Jeff, the first part of your argument is the reason your entire argument's a joke... "if there were no guns..." We will never live in a world where there will "be no guns." The government will always have them and the criminals never have any problem getting them on the black market.
Wake up and join reality, Jeff.
Pete| 6.21.10 @ 11:15AM
This is the wrong way to frame things and invites challenge by unscrupulous statisticians (see: global warming). Disappointed to see this kind of reasoning in AMspec.
NavyBrat | 6.21.10 @ 11:51AM
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."...Thomas Paine
And since Mr. Pages thinks that banning guns will result in no crime, I invite him to take a midnight stroll through Southeast DC, west Baltimore, north or south Memphis, or Pittsburgh's North Side. If he were to make it out alive, I wonder would he would say of the efficacy of gun bans?
Bruce | 6.21.10 @ 2:50PM
Don't be silly, NavyBrat - morons like ole Jeffrey would answer that the punks and criminals would not have guns either if they were banned! My God - don't you get it?
Besides, if confronted, ole Jeffrey would pull his trusty cellphone out of his purse and call the PO-lice to come save him.
Here's a clue for Jeffrey ... I was a cop for 25 years, little manchild, and with all various politicians and nitwit liberals like yourself expected me to do it would take a good 10-15 minutes to get to you - if that. Just enough time to help EMS mop up the blood, hang a toe tag on you, and conduct a preliminary investigation. Good luck with that, moron. Man up and protect yourself instead of expecting others to do what you're too mucha pussy to do yourself.
Houston Rao| 6.21.10 @ 12:10PM
Another good expose would be to dig into some of the high-profile anti-gun liberals and see how many of them own/carry guns or have armed security around them. For example, in NYC, you know someone, you can get a permit - only for the connected. Other liberals get themselves deputized as peace officers so they can carry a gun.
Robert Pinkerton| 6.21.10 @ 12:26PM
In his Republic, Plato proposed to abolish the name of "slave," for the purpose of disseminating slave consciousness throughout the people.
Now the uninfringed right to arms suits a people whose social character is unbalanced toward the Apollinian. In the hands of a people whose social character leans toward the dionysiac, however, the right of arms might indeed lead to an excess of civic bloodshed.
Radically to oversimplify: Apollo demands self-control, self0restraint. Dionysus, on the other hand, preaches letting oneself go. (I expect other commenters who are savvy of this, to pick up on it and develop it.)
According to the only two books on the topic of the psychology of slavery whereof I know, the "good" slave -- from the master's perspective, that is -- is dionysiac. Rhetorically, just how many social forces in this country aim at pushing the bulk of our people in the direction of dionysiac character?
(I apologise for the simplification, but courteous posting demands brevity.)
Dionysus The Kid| 6.21.10 @ 2:06PM
Gee Pinkerton !
I once shot down a man in Reno just to watch him die.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.21.10 @ 12:55PM
Pinkerton,
We do not need your specious philosophy. Greeks and such...putoooooie!
Put your feet on the pavement, and we will appreciate your posts.
Jim O'Brien| 6.21.10 @ 1:16PM
Socialists such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim, Castro, Obama, et. al. would be in total agreement with those who want to repeal the Second Amendment and ban guns, since then only two groups would have them: the government and the criminals.
Obama, the anti-American socialist impostor in the White House, is hoping that his Supreme Court appointees will help castrate the Second Amendment.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." ---- There is nothing equivocal about the Second Amendment.
RCV| 6.21.10 @ 4:45PM
If you're going to purport to quote the Second Amendment, you might try reading it. It doesn't start, "The right of the people to keep..". Here's what it says:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The purpose of the Amendment is clearly set out: it is to provide for state security, not individual gun ownership, through the maintenaince of state militias. This was the settled understanding of the Amendment for more than 200 years until the activist Robert-Alito court twisted its meaning. If you read the debates in the state legislatures on adoption of the Bill of Rights, you will see that what concerned the states at the time was the fear that the central government would finance a standing national army and prohibit the people of the states from maintaining their state militias. It would never have occurred to them that the Amendment was intended to restrict states from enacting whatever legislation they wished to regulate arms.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.21.10 @ 5:56PM
RCV,
Your point is well taken. Here in Texas we HAVE a "well regulated militia". None of us has a fully automatic weapon. We are "regulated".
heh,
Fully automatic weapons are very wasteful of ammo. Most private "militiamen" here do not want fully automatic weapons. Aimed fire ...one round at a time is the ticket. (It cuts down on the dogs, cats, and kids being shot.)
heh.
Please give us your address.
Then we can send the bad guys to your house for a free meal....and whatever else they might want.
Jim O'Brien| 6.21.10 @ 6:07PM
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Jim O'Brien| 6.21.10 @ 6:10PM
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
John Navratil| 6.21.10 @ 8:02PM
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a prefatory clause. It's the why, not the what. The framers knew what the king could do in an un-free state and made no condition to that right. The Supreme Court, as has been noted, recently agreed.
Jarhead1982| 6.22.10 @ 7:21AM
Let see,well regulated in 1700's meant well trained, disciplined and had absolutely NOTHING to do with laws. That is unless you are an English professor specializing in historical english language and writing structure who can prove otherwise and or have re-written all the letters ensconsed in the congressional writings records 1774-1789 showing exactly that, prove otherwise.
Heller decision 2008, US Supreme Court justices agree 9-0 that the second amendment is and always has been an idividual right. The 5-4 vote being on the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. gun ban being the vote in question, prove otherwise.
Then of course you can go to all the drafts and writings that formed the US Constitution and BOR and clearly identify the infromation that shows how the founding fathers would write all the other amednments as an individual right and only one as a collective right?
Why is it that the draft of what was to become the second amendment was clearly a collective right, changed to what exists today as the second amendment? (Karpeles Museum, CA on-line)
I mean logic clearly dictates that if indeed the founding fathers wanted a collective right, they would have kept the original draft as acceptable, but they didnt. So reality is that any interpetation by you is only wishful ka ka fantasy.
Bottom line is all those smart lawyers in Heller couldnt prove otherwise, neither can you so grow up and quit whining like a pathetic little petulant child, it's nauseating.
DaveS| 6.22.10 @ 8:24PM
I read the Scalia majority opinion. He completely obliterates the assertions of the militia-basis-only crowd: using plain language and the grammar of the Amendment itself. The Amendment has the unusual construction of having the predicate stated first. The tail dose not wag the dog, however - and gun ownership is guaranteed (though not without some restrictions on the insane, etc.)
cmblake6 | 6.23.10 @ 7:43PM
Actually, in point of fact, the 2A was meant to imply the idea of military grade weaponry. The idea was for you to grab your personal firearm from the mantlepiece or closet and join the fight against invasion or oppression. NO RESTRICTIONS. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard for people to understand?
cmblake6 | 6.23.10 @ 9:47PM
Mybad. On reread I understand that condition you stated. The restriction of individuals based on that individuals insanity or felony record. I was incensed a bit as to the various anti-2A persons, and their stupidity.
GavInTucson| 6.22.10 @ 11:55PM
RCV, I'm guessing you've never read the Federalist Papers, not to mention many of the writings of the Founders. They've made it very clear why the 2nd Amendment is there.
And you've clearly missed the mark on Supreme Court decisions on what precisely constitutes a well-regulated militia. Hell, even the Founders defined that in their own writings.
Solipslip| 6.23.10 @ 4:50PM
IF you have actually read what you purport to have, then either you're an idiot or a blinded idiot.
Do you believe no poster here has any historical knowledge of the 2nd Amd?
What idiocy, what arrogance!
J.P. Travis | 6.21.10 @ 1:35PM
I think President Obama promised to return science to decision making (http://www.jpattitude.com/ObamaLies.php#Science), so surely he will soon announce his support for gun ownership.
Bob in Western NY| 6.21.10 @ 2:23PM
This is one of the most illustrative articles, sans imposition of opinion over facts, I've read in a long, long time. Bravo.
Willbill| 6.21.10 @ 3:02PM
It should also be noted that according to the Department of Justice, in the year 1900, years before any so-called “sensible gun control laws” were enacted, the national murder rate was 1.2 per 100,000. Today, the murder rate is 5.4 per 100,000.
Obviously, they were doing some things right in 1900, and gun control was not one of them.
FTM| 6.21.10 @ 4:33PM
The entire arguement that private citizens owning and carrying guns is assinine. Peek, just take a peek at Switzerland. Shooting in Switzerland is like baseball in America. Everybody in Switzerland is in the Swiss national guard and are required by law to fire so many profficiency rounds per year. For the especially dense what this translates into is that everybody in Switzerland has at the very least a fully automatic rifle. There are folks riding around in cars right this minute in Switzerland that have anti-tank rockets and anti-aircraft missiles in their possession.
I read a book one time that, if memory serves, in 1987 there were seven murders in Switzerland and five of the murderers were killed by a bystander before the cops showed up. I think that one of the murderers was Swiss, the others were from someplace else.
Committing a crime in Switzerland is like trying to rob a gun store. What kind of freelance social redistributionist walks into a gun store and says, "Stick 'em up?"
In Finland folks can own machine guns and the like no problem. When the Soviet Union collapsed the Finnish Parliment decided to ban the private ownership of machine guns in Finland. All the Finnish folks went down to the Finnish Parliment building with their machine guns and surrounded the building and didn't let anybody leave till the Finnish Parliment repealed their silly little law. Three cheers and a tiger for the Fins.
Standing on the outside looking in I'd say that the old saying that "figures don't lie but liars figure" has a special meaning when being applied to modern "soft" sciences like economics, psychology, sociology and climate studies. If the numbers don't suit you then just make some up. This Lott guy published a paper complete with all of his raw data and has been under constant harassment since. Nobody can seem to lay hands on the "climate science" data, the dog ate it, compiled by global warming "scientists (fraud from the onset) but the consesnus is in and the planet is going to melt.
I think that the difference is that research in math, physics, biology and chemistry require an education where research in psychology, sociology, economics and climate science merely requires that you echo back to your doctorial committee whatever the theory du jure happens to be.
Bruce | 6.22.10 @ 5:49PM
I don't know where you researched this, FTW, but I'm sorry to tell you every word you have written here is totally and completely IN ERROR. All it would have taken to verify your remarks before putting them to [paper] would be to simply BING or Google (yuk) the words "Finnish gun laws."
ABNCP| 6.21.10 @ 5:38PM
I live in the real American state of Arizona. Our Governor acts like she has a pair unlike most politicans. Among the laws she recently signed was one that allowed any citizen of the state that has the ability to pass the requirements to own a firearm to legally carry one in any manner that want to. Oh yeah, she signed that other law as well. Sorry all you progressives. Your going to lose that court case as well as the next election.
Mark MacInnis| 6.21.10 @ 6:18PM
Yeehaw to your governor, she does have a nice pair....oh, you were talking about something else entirely, weren't you...
Keeping it simple: An well-armed society is an EXTREMELY polite society.
I'm not from the Great State of Arizona, but if your governor decides to ride into D.C., take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania, and raise a little hell there, she's got my vote.
cmblake6 | 6.21.10 @ 9:17PM
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
ABNCP| 6.21.10 @ 9:34PM
Gee cmblake6 does that mean we should get rid of the 2nd amendment???
cmblake6 | 6.23.10 @ 7:32PM
Explain to me, please, how you could twist that to mean that? The 2A is a recognition of one of our God given liberties that the government was not allowed to touch. And yet they have, in the interest of "security". No, we should NOT get rid of the 2A, we should recognize that the only "security" the government is interested in there is their own.
How about this one then: "People should not fear their government, government should fear their people"
Daniel| 6.21.10 @ 10:35PM
Take it from the Criminal viewpoint...Would the Criminal want to deal with an unarmed society or an armed society? Nuff, said.
DaveS| 6.22.10 @ 8:32PM
Your only defense in your gun-less house would be to put up a 'protected by Smith and Wesson' sign.
Truth to a liberal is like garlic to a vampire.
ACynic| 6.21.10 @ 10:38PM
It is no coincidence that as soon as communists or fascists (same thing really) assume power, they ban gun ownership by the citizenry, but NOT for themselves or their police.
They realize that an armed populace can rid the country of tyrants.
It is this reason, AND THIS REASON ONLY, that liberal progressives (read power hungry communist murderous thugs) want to ban guns.
Everybody knows that banning guns will only allow the criminals to have them. Drugs are illegal, but pushers have easy access to them.
Booze was illegal, but crooks, and most folks had easy access to booze.
It is the power hungry left wing fascist communist liberal progressives who want to have access to guns while extinguishing this right for the citizenry.
DaveS| 6.22.10 @ 8:34PM
The second amendment guarantees all the rest. This is why it is 'inconvenient' to the Nazi, communist and totalitarian Left (oops, I was being redundant: I could have just said 'Left.')
DaveS| 6.22.10 @ 8:38PM
Why did Maj. Hasan (big-time jihadist) succeed in killing Army personnel at Fort Hood? He knew he was the only one on the floor with a gun! It took local law enforcement to subdue him (by shooting.) The Army is to blame on so many fronts for this terrorism and debacle. What fools we are, being politically correct even in the damn armed forces.
Herb Martin| 6.22.10 @ 4:48PM
It is indeed the duty of those who would enable gun control and infringe civil rights to prove that gun control works and no government agency that has looked as this has been able to do so:
None of the US Department of Justice, CDC, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.
Even 'obviously sensible' laws such as Brady/NICS background check for firearm purchases are included -- they cannot be shown to work and are in fact not even enforced ON CRIMINALS.
Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or as a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/repor...../final.pdf
Clearly a law that cannot be shown to work, and which is only enforced on the law-abiding is an egregious infringement of freedom.
Big Leo| 6.22.10 @ 6:04PM
When libbies ask me how many times I have needed to shoot someone to protect myself, I say none. When they ask how many times I have had to produce a gun to prevent a felony from going down on me, I say twice. This is twice more than I've needed my smoke alarm, my motorcycle helmet, or my seatbelts. This puts my gun ahead 2 to 0 to 0 to 0 over other popular safety equipment. Good ratio!
DaveS| 6.22.10 @ 8:41PM
You made this mistake of even attempting an answer. The ratio does not matter in the least. I am glad, however, for your personal experience.
Alex| 6.23.10 @ 9:25AM
John Lott is paid by the NRA to write and distribute pro gun propaganda. Nothing he says should be considered as factual.
cmblake6 | 6.23.10 @ 7:38PM
No, I think if you do some unbiased research you will find he is not. You, sir, are a troll.
Solipslip| 6.23.10 @ 4:43PM
Alex is supported by the govt teat and therefore writes and distributes anti-gun propaganda. Nothing he says should be considered.
Vasu Murti | 6.24.10 @ 2:05PM
A gun in one's home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a criminal assault or homicide, an attempted or completed suicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill or injure in self-defense. (Kellermann, AL et al, 1998 journal of Trauma, 42:263-67)
In the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed, and more than 47 are injured, by a firearm every day. (CDC, NCHS, December 2006)
The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann, et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)
The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann et al, New England journal of Medicine, 1992)
A 1990 law banning the sale of "Saturday Night Special" handguns in Maryland was associated with reduced use of these guns by criminals, and a 9% lower rate of firearm homicides in the state between 1990-1998 than would have been expected had there been no law.
Policies that deny handgun purchases to individuals with prior misdemeanor or felony convictions are associated with a decreased risk of subsequent convictions. Misdemeanants who had allowed to purchase handguns prior to the passage of a California state law prohibiting such purchases had a rate of criminal offending 29% higher than that among misdemeanants who were denied handgun purchases after the law took effect.
Every day in the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed and more than 47 are injured by a firearm.
In 2005, 595 California children and youth under age 21 were killed with firearms and 1,554 California children and youth under 21 were hospitalized with nonfatal firerarms injuries.
One-third of U.S. children live in homes with firearms. Almost half of homes with children and firearms keep a gun unlocked.
68% of the attackers in school shootings obtained the gun(s) from their own home or that of a relative. 61% of the attackers used handguns.
Many young children, including children as young as three years old, are strong enough to fire a handgun.
In 2004, guns were used to kill:
5 people in New Zealand
37 in Sweden
56 in Australia
73 in England and Wales
184 in Canada
and 11,344 in the United States.
Gun control advocate Junling Hu writes:
"A gun is a consumer product, sold for money and purchased by individuals. While all consumer products including teddy bears are subject to strict federal laws, guns are given a free pass. There are no safety regulation on guns thanks to NRA’s lobbying efforts. Unsafe guns lead to accidents and death of adults and children at home. The ones who sufferes are the gun owners.
"A gun is also a lethal weapon. Falling into the wrong hand, it enables a criminal to kill, a gang member to fight, and a teenager to seek revenge. Guns are deadlier than tobacco, alcohol or gambling combined. While all of these are off limit to youngsters, and although a 20-year-old can be arrested for drinking a beer, he can go scot-free for buying a gun.
"The debate over gun laws is muffled by the slogan, 'We need less government regulation.' It is as if government regulation is always wrong. These people ignore the fact that the government regulates every aspect of our life today. From water to air, to drugs and toys, everything touching us is regulated by law. Without the Clean Air Act, we would be breathing dirty air ejected by power plants; we would be drinking unsafe water. Without government regulation, medicines with fatal side effects would not be pulled off shelves and toys with lead poison would still be on the market. Government regulation affects our housing safety, our food quality, our driving safety (through speed limits and safety belt laws). As we live in a society, government acts as a mediator and enforcer as no individual can do.
"The freedom of owning a gun has virtually nothing to do with abiding gun laws. Anyone can own an automobile, but they still need to register and get license for their cars. Everyone has the freedom of owning a house, but they still have to watch for zoning regulation and fire safety requirements.
"Sensible gun laws govern manufacturing standard, product safety, and accessible by minors and criminals. Sensible gun laws govern the safety of our street, our school, and most importantly, the safety of our home.
"Common sense gun laws such as closing gun show loophole, assault weapon ban, and child-lock are fundamentally needed to be sure guns do not fall into wrong hands. Yet all these basic laws are fought against by the NRA lobby. How far can we go in this extremist view of so-called 'individual freedom'? The consequence of suffering is demonstrated by deadly shooting every day, in every corner of America. Each day, over 80 people die from gun shooting, from accidents at home, to disputes with one's neighbor, to random shootings on the street. The deadly consequence of 'gun freedom' are the death of a young four-year-old--shot while playing with guns, a 15-year-old while in heat of argument, and a 19-year-old walking out of a nightclub.
"America does not have to be a society soaked in blood, because the bloody consequences were caused by a powerful gun lobby that stripped away our basic protection from the law. Let’s work to enact sensible gun laws. We ask for sensible regulation on guns, as we ask for regulation on food and drugs. The gun issue is no longer a private matter but a public safety issue. It affects all of us. Let’s pass sensible gun laws now".
Willbill| 6.24.10 @ 2:49PM
"A gun is a consumer product, sold for money and purchased by individuals.”
Guns are weapons that are designed to kill and therefore not consumer products. We expect consumer products, like teddy bears, not to kill under any circumstance. Gun ban zealots want firearms reclassified as consumer products so they can be regulations made to make firearms ineffective or regulated out of existence.
“…and although a 20-year-old can be arrested for drinking a beer, he can go scot-free for buying a gun.”
That is because we have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in D.C. vs. Heller.
“Anyone can own an automobile, but they still need to register and get license for their cars. Everyone has the freedom of owning a house, but they still have to watch for zoning regulation and fire safety requirements.”
You do not have a Constitutional right to own an automobile or house.
“"Common sense gun laws such as closing gun show loophole, assault weapon ban, and child-lock are fundamentally needed to be sure guns do not fall into wrong hands.”
None of these either has or will lower crime.
“Let’s pass sensible gun laws now.”
According to the Department of Justice, in the year 1900, years before any so-called sensible gun control laws were enacted, the murder rate was 1.2 per 100,000. Today, the murder rate is 5.4 per 100,000.
Obviously, they were doing some things right in 1900, and gun control was not one of them.
We now have hundreds of “sensible gun control laws” and they have not reduced crime. In Vermont, citizens can carry firearms without a permit, and they have a very low crime rate. Swiss citizens have easier access to firearms than in many U.S. states. In fact, it is estimated that there are 3,400,000 privately owned firearms in Switzerland and they rank third on the world in private firearms ownership. Yet, their crime rate is extremely low.
Crime has also fallen faster in shall issue right to carry states than the national average.
According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control there were 613 deaths from accidental gunshot wounds in 2007 from firearms which was less than two per day nationwide and down 29 from 2006.
Compare these numbers to accidental deaths by Burns 3,375, Drowning 3,443, Falls 22,631, Poisoning 29,864, and Traffic Accident 42.031.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/.....10_sy.html
Poll after poll has found that support for new gun control laws is at an all time low. The public gets it. We do not need more gun control laws. We need to enforce the laws that are on the books, and we need more crime control.
Nick| 6.25.10 @ 4:58PM
Vasu Muti,
Everything you copied and pasted is a lie.
Garry Owen| 6.24.10 @ 7:54PM
Please remember that in a Wasington D.C. case the Supreme Court ruled the police do not have a duty to protect individual citizens. This came out of a case where many people called to report an assualt in progress but the response way to late to help the victim. So, who do you call? Ghost Busters or chose to protect yourself? As in any emergency one should contact 911 as soon as possible. Since some things happen in a heartbeat the 911 call may have to happen afterward.
Paul | 6.25.10 @ 7:15AM
I thought long and hard before I got a concealed carry permit. Being former military and law enforcemnt, I am familiar with handguns and have owned on since it was legal for me to do so. My thought was that by passing the concealed carry laws, they were subvertly creating a database of handgun owners, so that when they decide to ban handguns, they have a good starting point. I went ahead and obtained a permit and I don't carry it with me all of the time, but when I go to places that I know have high crime rates, it is with me. I pray that I never have to take another life, but I will not be a victim and I will not let my family be victims either. With what is going on in California and Arizona, I am afraid that things are going to get bad and I don't intend to be defenseless. I have all the respect in the world for law enforcement and still have friends there, but when they come for the guns, as I am afraid they will, I will draw a line in the sand and I will not give up my guns. If I can't get my wife out of the house and away from harm I will get her to the safe place in the basement and start stacking clips. The ones on the left want the guns, but they won't be the ones in your front yard, they will send someone else to do their dirty work for them. It is time for all of them to be voted out of office.
Larry| 6.26.10 @ 9:00PM
I have just finished reading this asinine thread by arm-chair lawyers and judges and paranoid gun owners and it made me angry.
I have hunted since I was eleven years old and still own guns. I am 64 years old and have served in and saw action in Vietnam. Unlike most of these wimps, I have actually defended myself against someone who threatened my life. Never since I was discharged have I felt the need to carry a weapon nor do I live in fear that someone or some group is out to get me.
This generation of Americans is the most fearful generation this country has ever seen.
They are afraid to go into a Starbucks or a shopping mall without a loaded gun.
They are consumed with fear.
Sober up or better yet man up. My father's generation witnessed London being bombed daily and life went on.
When I was a kid people feared that the communists were going to bomb us . We had Russian missiles in Cuba. And still, most men didn't talk like cowards or feel the necessity to carry concealed weapons to scare the bad guys off.
The courts have ruled on the issue. We have the right to "bear arms" whatever that means. All I know is that I have a right to own a gun and am not afraid that anyone will take it from me.
I am sure that some people would like to but they have never had the political clout to do so. Both Demo's and Republicans have consistently supported that right.
If I saw a drunk guy in a bar with a weapon, I don't think I would feel more secure. If you carry that to its logical conclusion, then every man woman and child would be armed; first with handguns, then with automatic weapons and then where do we go?
Crime is not rampant in this country. If you listen to the media, you would believe otherwise, but it isn't true. Or is there a media conspiracy? If so, it's one that both liberal and conservatives conspire with?
Maybe somebody should take our guns away. Perhaps if they did, we would stop getting fatter and fatter and lean up and man up and learn how real men defend themselves.
Living in fear takes a terrible toll on your quality of life and restricts your freedom. And freedom is what this country is all about.
Nick| 6.27.10 @ 12:03PM
Larry,
Thank you for your service to our great country.
But, your position is incorrect. People are not cowering in fear, they are prepared to defend themselves. And democrats do not support the right to bear arms, they want to ban firearms.
Ever heard of the expression, "It is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it?"
Larry| 6.27.10 @ 6:53PM
Nick,
I disagree with your argument that the reason that many people carry guns is based on any real threat to their person or property.
I can't recall a time in our history when we have had more reason to feel secure in our homes and believe that this sense of some impending threat is irrational. Frankly I think it's a hoax being perpetrated on us by the media. And that their motivation isn't political it's monetary.
Our media outlets have been taken over by corporations who make a profit by dividing people. They thrive on controversy whether it's in the political or entertainment arenas. They take advantage of our mental laziness; our unwillingness to look at facts, by turning our dialog into bumper stickers.
Which brings me to your other statement that democrats want to ban guns. My reply is simple..if they really wanted to, they would have done so, they have had plenty of opportunity to do so over the last few decades. Republicans supported the Brady bill and many Democrats supported a law which allows guns to be carried onto Amtrak. The overwhelming percentage of the American public support reasonable gun control and, I would bet that most members of the NRA also do (although I have no proof of that since I no longer belong due to their insane insistence that suspected terrorists can buy guns). My point is, it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Look around you and you will see that most of the fear is self generated. Some people enjoy going through life believing that carrying a firearm has protected them.
I am glad that I brought up my children so that they had the capability and skill necessary to defend themselves if necessary. If I ever felt that I lived in a country where I wasn't safe unless I was armed, I would leave it because I'm getting too old to change it.
Nick| 6.28.10 @ 4:33PM
Larry,
The facts contradict your mere assertions.
Perhaps you have forgotten the Luby's restaurant massacre from almost 20 years ago? Or all the other spree shootings since?
Suzanna Gratia Hupp's parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in the worst mass shooting in America, until the Virginia Tech killings. Mrs. Hupp left her gun in her car because Texas law forbade carrying a concealed firearm. If she had had her gun with her, many lives would have been saved that day.
Ordinary citizens stop over 2,000 crimes a year with their firearms. In 2002, the Appalachian School of Law shooter was stopped by two men with their private guns. The shooter was stopped after killing three, and wounding three others.
Mrs. Hupp was elected to the Texas legislature and got the law changed. This is when the CCW movement took off.
In 1994, Bubba the pervert, and his democrat congress, rammed through the Brady bill and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which BANNED certain guns for ten years.) Some RINOs did vote for these un-Constitutional measures, but most of them aren't around anymore. To be more accurate, liberals want to ban guns.
The overwhelming number of Americans, WHO VOTE, do not want so-called "reasonable" gun control. And they are the ones who matter. Also, SCOTUS doesn't agree with gun control, either.
I think it is you, Larry, who is cowering in fear. Fear of your fellow citizens walking around armed.
Again, it is better to have a gun, and not need it, than to need a gun, and not have it. However unlikely it may be, you or I COULD find ourselves in a spree-shooter situation tomorrow.