The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Public Policy
Print Email
Text Size

The Public Policy

Fewer Guns, More Crime

By on 12.19.12 @ 6:08AM

It is time to put liberal posturing aside.

To President Obama, the word “politics” means anyone who disagrees with him, as in the phrase “It is time to put politics aside.” Whenever he says that, he is really saying “It is time to put aside anyone who disagrees with me on this issue.”

Our hearts are all still hurting over the mass shooting and murder of 20 innocent small children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. But it was in the same breath as the announcement of the tragedy that President Obama’s all politics all the time ideological warriors inserted their politics, seeking to exploit the deaths of these small children for their ideological and political gain. For them, such gain means liquidating even more of the liberties and even constitutional rights of all Americans who had nothing to do with the mass shooting.

Twenty children are murdered in cold blood by a deranged gunman, and the answer is to seize the guns and flush the effective right to self-defense of 300 million Americans? The answer is actually just the opposite, as I explain below. Just ask yourself what political philosophy has had disarming the citizenry near the top of its agenda for more than a century.

But the question we all have to ask now is are we going to tolerate left-wing infiltrators exploiting the gruesome murder of small children to advance the further diminution of our liberties and constitutional rights?

More Guns, Less Crime
 The sharpest person in America on the issue of guns and crime is John Lott, the author of the classic book, More Guns, Less Crime. Early in his career, Lott was an economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which established federal sentencing guidelines, leading to his subsequent career as a pathbreaking thinker on guns and crime. His book More Guns, Less Crime is the bible for understanding how to respond effectively to the Sandy Hook school tragedy.

Lott’s book is not an opinion piece or a lawyer’s argument. What it does is carefully present, review, and analyze copious data county by county, city by city, state by state, all across America, for several recent decades. Moreover, he doesn’t just cite stats that he thinks will make his case. He presents the data through highly sophisticated regression analysis that befits a first rate economist formerly of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and thoroughly explains and demonstrates what the numbers show. These regressions

account for not only all the law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures (poverty and unemployment rates, per capita real income, as well as income maintenance, retirement and unemployment payments), the thirty-six measures of demographic changes, and the national average changes in crime rates from year to year and average differences across states….In addition, the [regressions] account for the differences in various concealed-handgun laws and other types of gun control laws.

In other words, this is the most sophisticated presentation of the data in the world.

What the results show is that in localities where there are more guns, there is less crime. That is because criminals avoid victims who are or might be armed, and prefer to prey on the defenseless and unarmed. It is this unparalleled scholarship that has swept the states with newly enacted “concealed carry” laws. Those laws require local authorities to issue permits to carry concealed handguns to those who meet the specified qualifications (known as “shall issue” laws). Lott describes the sweeping change in his latest Third Edition of More Guns, Less Crime:

In 2007, there were about 5 million Americans permitted to carry concealed handguns. Thirty-nine states have right to carry laws and nine have may-issue laws. Only two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, still completely ban people from carrying concealed handguns. That is a big change from just the eight states that had right-to-carry laws in the early 1980s.

Also in the Third Edition, published in 2010, are the results of sophisticated regressions run on the effects of those conceal and carry laws:

There are large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.

Lott adds:

All the results indicate that violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are passed…. There is a large, statistically significant drop in murder rates across all specifications. The before-and-after average comparison implies that right-to-carry laws reduce murder by roughly 20 percent. In all cases, right-to-carry laws cause the trends in murder, rape, and robbery rates to fall.

Lott quotes the Detroit Free Press on the results of conceal and carry in one state:

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (96) |

Joellen| 12.19.12 @ 7:36AM

Mr. Ferrara, with all due respect, you and Dr. Sowell, are reporting facts; and in case you havent noticed, neither those who supported Obama in the last two elections, nor the media give a hoot about facts. It's all about feelings, dont you know. So, thank you, for there are still a few of us who appreciate your fact finding, just dont be too disappointed when you get a blank stare from the new Mr. & Ms. America, they just cant be burdened with the facts, it gets into their 24/7 play time. I'm just saying.

Mars the Avenger| 12.19.12 @ 8:17AM

I fear you are right, Joellen.

Something to consider as well. Supreme Court decisions going back to South vs. Maryland in 1856 have established that we as citizens have no constitutional right to police protection, even in the case of there being a restraining order, as happened in the most recent decision in 2005 in the case Castle Rock vs. Gonzales. In 1982, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this in the case of Bowers vs. DeVito, ruling that "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Decisions on the matter since then up through 2005 have upheld this. The below NY Times article explains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06......html?_r=0

The choice is to remain disarmed and dependent on the goodwill of 911, or to learn self defense, including learning how to use a firearm. Those who wish to control or ban firearms are either unaware of this or deliberately ignore this and depend on the ignorance of others to push their case.

Responsible ownership of firearms depends on instruction on their capabilities, their use and a healthy respect for what they can do.

"When second count, the police are minutes away..." In other words, self defense is up to us.

markenoff| 12.19.12 @ 9:32AM

Why do I carry a concealed handgun? Because a cop is just too heavy.

Harry the Horrible| 12.19.12 @ 10:10AM

Besides, they not housebroken and you can't trust 'em around dogs.

Anthony| 12.19.12 @ 3:45PM

They eat too many powder sugar donuts on the couch. And, they leave the toilet seat down when they pee.

Anthony| 12.19.12 @ 3:48PM

When seconds count, my 9mm is at the ready.

mike 3/505| 12.19.12 @ 8:30AM

By all means let us have a National Discussion. Let us discuss the moral depravity of our Federal, State and Local governments who deliberately denied the adults at Sandy Hook the ability to defend themselves and the babies placed in their charge. By all means, let us have a discussion about government interference turning a place of childhood learning into a target rich charnel house. Indeed, let us discuss this...and hold the legislators who proposed and passed this "gun free zone," personally accountable. How about we discuss stopping these fools now before they have a chance to pass "more of the same," legislation, disarming law abiding citizens.

Regards,

Mike

TLP| 12.19.12 @ 2:03PM

Beach Scene.........................

Those were the days.

Joellen| 12.19.12 @ 5:03PM

Funny TLP, I really was just thinking that; alas, those innocent days are long gone.

Von Mises Jr| 12.19.12 @ 9:28AM

There is a logic to the lefts position on taking away guns from legal and law abiding Americans. The problem with detecting their logic is that as conservatives, Constitutionalist and Christians; the logic does not easily compute for us.
The leftist want to not only kill 1.5M babies a year with abortion, but they want to kill babies that survived botched abortions. With ObamaCare, they wish to kill grandma or anyone extremely ill that does not have a positive scorecard. The police can kill those rampaging society.
Q: So who is left?
A: Law abiding, conservative, Constitutionalist and Christians.

It is no freaking accident that socialism killed 100 million innocent people in the twentieth century. Socialism is the creed of slavery and death.

dominic1955| 12.19.12 @ 9:52AM

They tend to be either the hardcore lust for power types like Stalin or the useful idiots Lenin spoke of. The useful idiots, of which we have plenty of in this country, are the Professor Loomis type of people or all the other whiny liberals that get all pissy about gun control, or sodomy "marriage", or abortion "rights". The scary thing about it is that they thing they are the vanguard of intelligence and *if only* they could have their way unfettered it would usher in "heaven" on earth.

Imagine (as one commie shill put it) there's no religion, no guns, no restriction on women's choice or who you can love! What a wonderful world! If only all those knuckledraggers were out of the way...

Coming back to reality, we see from the various socialist/liberal attempts to make utopia-it ends up hell on earth. Look at Liberal, MO for a small scale example or the Soviet Union for a grand one. What was it about repeating something over and over and being amazed that the same thing occurs?

Let's have no doubts, the same handwringing sissies that are scared out of their minds of guns would gleefully use them if the opportunity presented itself against us. None of these statists care about life, they have shown themselves more than willing to kill when it suits their agenda.

Von Mises Jr| 12.19.12 @ 10:25AM

Well said, my friend. You clearly understand the history and philosophy behind the left. This is the only way to defeat them: to expose them.

I knew the theories fairly well from other readings, but over this Holiday I am immersing myself in "The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche." It has the original essays from a dozen Enlightenment "Age of Reason" philosophers.
I laugh when Rush tells the audience how the liberals will react before they respond. He irritates the hell out of them since he knows them better than they know them. He even sets them up telling the audience beforehand that this will really tick them off.
I posted over and over for months the prediction that we would go over the fiscal cliff, why and how it would affect middle class families. When you understand liberals (or when reading Austrian Economics or Philosophy they are simply referred to what they are: "socialist"), it is not hard to figure out what they will do and are doing.

SUBVET| 12.19.12 @ 1:52PM

V Jr. .................where is the outrage on the killing of the innocent overseas by drones ?

http://www.brasschecktv.com/vi.....rikes.html

woodsman1st| 12.24.12 @ 1:06PM

Suppose you tell everyone first about the "outrage" over terrorists intentionally hiding within schools, churches, markets and other places where civilians gather in order to attack our military, thus endangering them to attack by drones and the firearms of our military. You libs never express any outrage over the cowardly actions of the terrorists exposing their own unarmed people and using them as sheilds while they wage their attacks.
You libs only recall what is helpfull to whatever left wing tangent you happen to be supporting; and ignoring any facts that would contradict your ravings.

Aristocat| 12.19.12 @ 8:46PM

The #1 gun-free zone---airlines, which led to 3,000 murdered on 9/11

Pecos Pete| 12.19.12 @ 8:39AM

From todays TownHall.com: "Detroit topped Forbes magazine's 2010 list of America's Most Dangerous Cities. That year there were 345 homicides, but that's going to be topped with this year's 365 homicides so far. Most homicide victims in Detroit and elsewhere are black, and 95 percent of the time their murderers are black."

From todays PowerLineBlog.com: "In most of Africa, homicide rates are sky-high, as much as five to ten times America’s rate. The homicide rate in Brazil is around five times that of the U.S. And here in the United States, according to the Department of Justice, the murder rate among African-Americans is almost eight times the murder rate among whites."

I'm expecting the Village Idiots will complain that I am being racist. But, facts are facts. I don't see King O, or "progressive" journalists, worrying about deaths in Detroit, Chicago, Africa, Brazil, etc.

Nope, they just can't stand the sight of a semi-automatic gun that looks like a military weapon. It wouldn't matter to them if semi-auto guns looked like a 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle.

They want our guns. They want ALL of our guns.

Nancy in NC| 12.19.12 @ 8:58AM

The weapon in much of Africa is a machete. Now that's a nice weapon. Ban the guns and it will probably become more popular in Chicago. Well, after the thugs can't get weapons...and that will never happen.

Criminals have guns and don't give a fig about laws or anti gun areas. Try to convince a liberal of that simple fact.

UpChuck.Liberals| 12.19.12 @ 10:42PM

Facts to Liberals/Socialists are like Holy Water to Vampires. They both try to avoid them.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.19.12 @ 10:39AM

In 2006, I was at a debate between candidates for state Attorney General. The question arose regarding the increased homicide incidence in our largest city, which was a major talking point of the campaign, and what approaches would be taken to reduce it. The Democrat candidate spoke of the new programs that Wayne County, MI (the county with Detroit)was adopting for community prosecution, that they expected to be successful in lowering the crime rate.

When the question came to his opponent, he responded that our state and Wayne County were nearly identical in population size, and while the former had less than 50 homicides the previous year, Detroit and its environs had about 350. As a result, he was not going to use their model of approaching homicide and other crime in our state with any expectation that it would reduce it.

Unfortunately, the Democrat won. He is better known as Beau Biden (son of the VPOTUS), and he credited the city of Wilmington (the one with the expanding homicide rate) with giving him the necessary margin to eke out his first victory. Not surprisingly, the Wilmington homicide rate continues to climb and rival that of Detroit.

scotchieguy| 12.19.12 @ 11:25AM

Yep, and this time they are really serious. I just heard O put Joe "I can't stop the shit from spewing from my mouth" Biden in charge. What a country!

fmm| 12.19.12 @ 11:45AM

Isn't it interesting that the libs are in favor of both abortion and gun laws which tend to have blacks as their victims?

ebonystone| 12.20.12 @ 2:49AM

In Chicago, there were already 400 murders this year by Oct. 1. That's equivalent to a Newtown massacre every 3 weeks or less. And that's despite Illinois having had the most restrictive gun laws of any state. I say "had" because the federal Court of Appeals just struck down the Illinois laws in a decision a week or two ago.

Louis Jenkins| 12.19.12 @ 8:55AM

You make too much darned sense, Mr. Ferrara. Bring down the signs, and put up an "Armed for Defense" signs. For too long we have allowed the Federal Government to 'think' for us. How about allowing for some common sense. You'd be surprised how much milage that would get. Good article sir.

cowgirl| 12.19.12 @ 8:56AM

How many mass shootings have taken place at a gun show or biker bar?

Stan Redmond| 12.21.12 @ 3:10PM

Or a police station? Or a firing range? Or at a gun store? Or at Charlton Heston's house?

Nancy in NC| 12.19.12 @ 8:59AM

How about the bank in Texas that welcomes concealed carry customers? No more hold-ups. What a concept!

Nancy in NC| 12.19.12 @ 9:02AM

A novel idea...ban criminals not guns. Bet that work better than the liberal idea. I intend to do my part if afforded the opportunity. Mr. Smith and Wesson make it possible, and he's always with me.

Riff Raff| 12.19.12 @ 9:29AM

"That is because criminals avoid victims who are or might be armed, and prefer to prey on the defenseless and unarmed."

What amazes me most of all is that this simple statement required "unparalled scholarship" to present. It is in fact, common sense. Or, at least it USED to be common. And it is routinely dismissed by the self-styled leftist "intelligensia", perhaps the dumbest people on the planet.

markenoff| 12.19.12 @ 9:30AM

Kentucky passed concealed carry several years before Ohio did. When KY passed they saw a decrease in the crime rates in Northern KY across the river from Cincinnati with a corresponding increase in the crime rates in Cincinnati. Correlation is not causation but it is a necessary condition for causation.

Dodd2| 12.19.12 @ 9:36AM

"Can liberals reason" about gun control?

Of course they can't. The problems is they can't tell the truth about it.

And the truth is that liberals don't give a crap about crime and violence just like Obama does not really care about economic growth.

In both cases, the main objective of the Left is seizing more power over of society by the growth of big, regulatory government ..... with them in charge, of course.

The 2nd Amendment is an obstacle in their path to power. It's simple as that

squalis| 12.19.12 @ 9:50AM

Writing of guncontrol advocates, to quote Mr. Ferrara in this article:

"But there is no sense or logic to that."

Just look at liberal policies in general. That sentence describes liberalism in a nust shell.

Kwan| 12.19.12 @ 10:10AM

The left of course always wants what's best for the kids. Obama cancelled school vouchers for the kids in DC going to lousy schools because it was the best for the kids, and of course protection of the Teachers Unions had nothing to do with it. That idea of armed teachers like they have is Israel seems like a good idea. Let's be honest what's the difference between a kid in an Israeli school needing protection from Islamic psychopaths and the kids in Newtown needing protection from this nutjob Lanza. What's at work here is the left wants to promote the fallacy that armed self-defense is bad and being a hapless, defenseless dope is good. Needless to say any self-respecting Marxist Dictatorship wouldn't want an armed population capable of defending itself against a Civilian National Security Force agent, sent to arrest citizens on trumped-up charges merely to intimidate the rest of the population. Bill Ayers confirmed the fact that the greatest fear of any Marxist Revolutionary Psychopath is the possibility of an armed counter-revolution

Al Adab| 12.19.12 @ 10:30AM

The entire argument is in fact silly. It should be against the law to violate the law. Killers, gun thieves, burglers, etc. all are criminals. Maybe we should punish those who violate the law and leave honest, normal people alone.

In my small town about half the businessmen I associate with carry. Our morning coffee group of about 12 to 15 includes four or five (maybe more) who carry every day. We haven't shot each other yet.

CJW| 12.19.12 @ 11:02AM

Al Adab

As libs say, let us deal with the root problem, which means we should outlaw killings, rape, robbery, etc. Since we have already passed numerous laws prohibiting all sorts of conduct, and people still violate all these laws, why would a criminal obey a law banning or restricting guns?

The libs must believe in the logic that a criminal will obey the law banning guns and decide to use a different weapon or instrument, such as baseball bat, to kill. Or they believe a criminal will not go to a school or mall because it is a gun free zone.

Merry Christmas.

Every state has a gun enhancement law that enhances the penalty if you use a gun. For example, in Pa you get an extra 3 years, minimum, for using a gun in any crime.

Maybe we should restrict the sale of computers, calculators, pencils, and pens to reduce white collar crime of embezzlement and tax evasion.

Al Adab| 12.19.12 @ 11:25AM

W:
Computers also facilitate kiddie pron.

Maybe I'll buy my wife a 38 special for her purse as a Christmas present.

Merry Christmas to you and yours

CrossingTheDelaware| 12.19.12 @ 10:35AM

I agree with Lott, and your piece in general, but please - don't use Lib gun logic on video games and movies. I have 2 young kids and I make sure they don't get into either, but if others want to enjoy them, why should they not be allowed to? I hope you are not proposing further restrictions on video games and movies - further encroaching on our liberties.

Video games and movies don't kill people - people kill people.

Riff Raff| 12.19.12 @ 10:56AM

If adults want to play video games, fine. But small children whose brains are still developing physically and mentally are damaged by the rapid-fire, non-stop action and violence of video games. Their brains do not develop properly and do develop neural pathways that lead to other problems, like inattention, boredom, and a craving for ever more active stimulus. This can and does lead to anti-social and even criminal behavior in many children as they become adolecents and adults.

CrossingTheDelaware| 12.19.12 @ 12:21PM

I'm not promoting the use violent video games by children. I'm promoting the freedom of people that want to use them, and of companies that want to make them. Would I let my kids play violent video games? Heck no. Would you? Probably not from what you wrote. So, do you believe there are parents that don't know better, and who need our virtuous federal government to intervene between them and their kids? And if so, what's next? What websites they can visit? What books they can read? And how would they do it? What new agency would have to be created? At what cost?

Don't be promoter of the nanny state. Don't be a Mayor Bloomberg, regulating how much salt I can have or how many ounces of soda I can drink.

Don't surrender your liberty to distant, faceless, careless bureaucrats.

Riff Raff| 12.19.12 @ 1:08PM

That's not what I meant. I do not support boobs and nannies like Bloomberg. The problem is we SUBSIDIZE with taxpayer money people who don't work, who let their kids play violent video games, and other behaviors that lead to sloth and degeneracy, and ultimately, to events like Newtown, CN. I don't want more government, I want to eliminate government subsidies for slothful behavior, especially subsidizing their rampant procreation. Stop giving bums money and they will stop having endless babies for the government to support.

CrossingTheDelaware| 12.19.12 @ 5:52PM

I'm with you regarding the wasteful abuse of entitlements and largess.

I'm with you that many video games and movies should NOT be accessed by kids.

But do you agree that we do NOT need additional government "video game control" or "movie control"? That you and I can take care of ourselves and our families w.r.t. video games/movies without more government regulation/intervention?

Riff Raff| 12.20.12 @ 10:44AM

I agree completely. Government does not offer solutions. Government creates problems.

Al Adab| 12.19.12 @ 4:31PM

Don't forget that Bloomberg refused to allow the national guard into NYC after Sandy...they were carrying guns.

Jack London| 12.19.12 @ 10:35AM

The sad truth is that more guns makes us less free. As this thoughtful article points out:

"As ever more people are armed in public, however — even brandishing weapons on the street — this is no longer recognizable as a civil society. Freedom is vanished at that point."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytim.....ed-society

As for John Lott, he's a fraud who failed to provide his data and once took to the Internet in false name to try and improve his standing. Nothing to see there.

Pecos Pete| 12.19.12 @ 10:51AM

Nothing to see here.

Riff Raff| 12.19.12 @ 10:52AM

This is false and so ludicrous it needs no further response. Freely armed people are FREE people, not serfs to government. Your statement is indefensible both historically and logically. For you to call ANYONE else a "fraud" is chutzpah. You are the fraud here. You are the dimwit masquarading as an "intellectual."

Jack London| 12.19.12 @ 11:02AM

From the article:

As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.

I often think of the armed protestor who showed up to one of the famously raucous town hall hearings on Obamacare in the summer of 2009. The media was very worked up over this man, who bore a sign that invoked a famous quote of Thomas Jefferson, accusing the president of tyranny. But no one engaged him at the protest; no one dared approach him even, for discussion or debate — though this was a town hall meeting, intended for just such purposes. Such is the effect of guns on speech — and assembly. Like it or not, they transform the bearer, and end the conversation in some fundamental way. They announce that the conversation is not completely unbounded, unfettered and free; there is or can be a limit to negotiation and debate — definitively.

Riff Raff| 12.19.12 @ 11:31AM

Assuming this story is not apocryphal, imagine the situation wherein ONLY the government is armed. Do you not think that puts a damper on "free speech?" It has been said that an armed society is a polite society. Instead of shooting off their mouths as you like to do, people exercise restraint and intelligence in what they say. This is not a denial of freedom. Personally I would not feel restrained from speaking under such circumstances. There is less to fear from an armed citizenry than from an armed government. This is both historically accurate and logically sound. You are neither.

JmsA| 12.19.12 @ 9:38PM

I don't have to imagine it; I lived it. And believe, it is much more than free speech that a damper is put on.

CrossingTheDelaware| 12.19.12 @ 6:26PM

@Jack London - Combustible ingredients in assembly and speech? Are guns the only weapon that can intimidate someone into remaining silent? By that (flawed) logic, you have a long list of other ordinary items that could be used to intimidate to outlaw (baseball bats, a broken bottle, heck, a can of gasoline and matches -- that is REALLY combustible). Lame, very lame arguments from "academic intellectuals".

@Riff Raff - well done, you hit the nail on the head. *THAT* is primary reason the framers, in all their wisdom, gave us the 2nd Amendment. Because, as a *last* resort, an armed citizenry can jealously guard it's liberty from a government that has become tyrannical. It's inconceivable to us today (even with the aweful BHO) that this could happen in the United States. But that's today - 2012. Who knows what this country looks like in 2050 or 2100. The framers gave us an escape hatch for that situation, however unlikely it may be.

markenoff| 12.19.12 @ 11:02AM

Yes it is the guns that is making us no longer recognizable as a civil society. Not the destruction of the family by making fathers redundant as breadwinners. Not the rampant sex and violence on TV. If it wasn't for all the guns we wouldn't have flash mobs looting stores right?

And, of course, the cities with the strictect gun laws; Chicago, DC, NYC, are known the world over as bastions of civility and refinement.

BTW "brandishing weapons on the street", that is, open carry, doesn't even require a permit in most states.

SFCMikeJ| 12.19.12 @ 4:31PM

Jack you are a liar and a fool. 22 seconds on Google resulted in this link:

http://www.johnlott.org/

At the bottom of the page are the instructions on how to obtain John Lott's data. Next time when you make up accusations at least make them convincing enough that they take some effort to disprove.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

Anthony| 12.19.12 @ 6:27PM

Jack London should be FORCED to have a sign in front of his shack, THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE.
Post it Jack, show us what a true leader you are, live by you words.

Anthony| 12.19.12 @ 10:58AM

As I said in another post, since America is into forcing people to do things, all leftists should be FORCED to keep this exact sign in front of their homes, hovels, caves, and mommy's basement.
Obozo can stick the cost of the signs into the next stimulus bill. Or better yet, stick it.......

OregonBuzz| 12.19.12 @ 11:18AM

It will be interesting to watch Harry Reid apply the papyrus to his posterior when this gets out.
“I had a lot of bad people after me and I carried a gun every place I went. . . But for me, guns are more than that. In fact, the most important part of guns as far as I’m concerned in my personal life is the recreational aspect of guns.” Senator Harry Reid -- 2010

ArmyAviator| 12.19.12 @ 11:20AM

"Abilene is a town of an armed citizenry. This tends to make relations both peaceful and respectful."
- James Butler ("Wild Bill") Hickok, while City Marshal of Abilene, in an interview with an eastern newspaper reporter.

(Until Hickok's reply, the reporter had thought Wild Bill himself was the reason.that Abilene was so peaceful for the locals

Petronius| 12.19.12 @ 11:34AM

The Liberal is the Terminal Toddler who demands the world be ordered to his liking. The Liberal now controls every institution which controls US. One more generation of them and there will be no Real Adults remaining who could save them from themselves. They hate Conservatism with every cell in their infantile bodies, and see us as a bigger threat than Muslim terrorists. Maybe when we are no more and they have to live under Sharia they'll learn. The exception to that will be for the Liberals who are into bestiality. They'll be overjoyed.

BShep| 12.19.12 @ 11:53AM

I understand from reading an article on Fox News, that Lanza had just found out that his mother had started proceedings to have him involuntarily committed and this made him angry, which caused his killing spree. There were papers to file and competency hearings to hold. The delay between when his mother went to the all-mighty and all-knowing government pleading for help with her mentally ill son and when she could actually get any help allowed Lanza time to plan and carry out his scheme to kill the mother, teachers and students.

This delay is all the doing of lawyers and politicians protecting our “rights” to privacy and other nonsense. Since, logically, lawyers and politicians are much more the cause of the mass killing, I propose we test all of the lawyers and politicians for evil. You know, lawyer control.

We could use the test that the people of Salem, MA used for suspected witches. But instead of drowning them, I propose a shark tank test. We place a lawyer in a shark tank. If the sharks eat him or her then we know the lawyer is not evil and we apologize to the family. If the sharks do not eat the lawyer (professional courtesy) then we know the lawyer is evil and we burn him or her at the stake.

I suggest we start with the politicians. I will be glad to kick into the shark fund. We will have to worry about the ASPCA getting wind of the scheme though because of the whole cruelty to animals thing.

McClain | 12.19.12 @ 12:38PM

Forget logic. All non-leftist people need to understand about gun control is Red China demands the American populace be immediately and totally disarmed. Why, you ask?

Like the Japanese and Russians before them, leaders of militaristic totalitarian countries understand that to invade the U.S. would be to face not only our military but the armed citizenry.

If anyone needed to know why the founding fathers included the Second Amendment, Beijing offered further proof today.

Alan's Girl| 12.19.12 @ 1:14PM

I have always been 'tickled' (a Texas phrase) by those "No Gun Zone" signs on schools & business establishments.
#1- Do (or can) most criminals read them?
#2- I look at them as welcome mats for any crazy with a weapon: "Come on in! You're Armed & We're Not!"
I'm cozying up to my LC-9 more everyday.

AllAmericanAmerican| 12.19.12 @ 1:39PM

A few posters have mentioned it but the problem is FACTS DON'T MATTER to folks on the Left. And if yesterday is any indication, facts don't matter to businesses or sheeple.

When places of business self-censor, which is what they are doing when they stop selling rifles made by Bushmaster because a deranged psychopath used one in the commission of a crime, it is a tacit admission that the rifle or the business itself bore some responsibility for the crime. Just like when governors veto duly vetted and passed legislation expanding a natural born right.

Look, we don't blame children when sick individuals with a propensity for child molestation act of those urges do we? So why do we blame guns when sick individuals with a propensity for violence act out on theirs?

If ANYONE deserves blame here (outside of Adam Lanza himself) it is his mother. She KNEW her son had a capacity for violence yet she allowed him to immerse himself in violent video games. She TOOK HIM SHOOTING with her. In other words, she ENABLED him, to borrow a word from current headshrinkers.

Now, before anyone accuses me of blaming video games or movies I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is taking a mentally ill person who has shown an inclination to violence (to the point Mrs Lanza warned a babysitter not to turn her back on Adam Lanza) is beyond STUPID. Much like allowing a known child molester to have a job at a day care, or taking an alcoholic to the local bar for a few drinks.

tdiinva| 12.19.12 @ 1:58PM

Obama and his friends know and understand Lott's work. They want to use it to their advantage. Crime is the liberal's first choice for social control. Crime keeps poor people poor. It destroys communities by creating an economic wasteland and it reduces the population into isolated individuals who stay home in fear of their safety. It is a far more effective coercive strategy than totalitarian style oppression and it delivers effective control while maintaining an illusion of freedom. Less gun, more crime? They are all for it.

JmsA| 12.19.12 @ 2:44PM

Simple and eloquent wisdom:

http://espn.go.com/mens-colleg.....-shootings

AllAmericanAmerican| 12.19.12 @ 8:39PM

If nobody knows what to do is this really the time to be "doing something?"

Do what, exactly?

Seapuss| 12.19.12 @ 3:07PM

They say a leopard cannot change his spots. But, evidently, some leopards can hide them quite well--for a while.

Thanks for showing us your spots, Senator Joe Manchin.

Lesson: Democrat = Pro-Gun Control

Purp| 12.19.12 @ 3:43PM

Conservative reign is just about over ... and I get that it hurts.
But, you brought it out yourselves ... so you are stuck with it.
Gun Control does not equal Gun Ban. Get it through your thick heads.
Or do you need to wait until your kid is killed with a Bushmaster semi-automatic with 100 round clip until you outlaw the guns/ammo exclusively made to shoot people?
Oh, but are you going to say you need that rifle to shoot a herd of deer for dinner? Or are you that bad of a shot you need 50 rounds to bring down duck? LMAO at your stupidity.
Pray your kids are not one of them in the future.

CJW| 12.19.12 @ 3:49PM

Purp the Village Idiot

Now purpie descends into racism:

"Oh, and YOU'RE a LOSER ... can't even beat the black man... you're so awful... hahahaha (that's for your last line, you wanna dish it out, then take it)"

Can't even beat the "black man?" So you believe blacks are inferior and easy to beat.
Keep posting moron, you provide fresh material every day.

You are truly an idiot and a racist

markenoff| 12.19.12 @ 4:11PM

Your ignorance is palpable with every word you type. Please tell me where you can find a "100 round clip". You are apparently so ignorant of firearms you do not know the difference between a clip and a magazine. You also apparently do not understand that deer hunting requires a high velocity round in order to ensure the deer is killed, not just wounded. The law in many places. You also do not understand that when you go duck hunting you are much more likely to be succesful of you take a shotgun and that in almost every state shooting waterfowl must be done with a shotgun that holds no more than 2 rounds in the MAGAZINE, not clip.

And my kids will not be one of "them" in the future nor will they end up like the family in Conneticut where the daughters and mother were raped and killed beacuse both my wife and I are armed and none of my children will ever go to a psycho's shooting paradise, I mean a public school.

I pray like my family's safety depends on God but prepare as if it depends on me.

SFCMikeJ| 12.19.12 @ 4:49PM

Gun control does equal gun ban. That is what the political gun control people say. I don't need a rifle to shoot a heard of deer you idiot. I need a gun to protect myself from a government run by people who think like you do.

I am a gun owner and the only thing I hunt are my car keys and the remote. My guns are for self protection and to protect liberty from tyrants such as you and your ilk.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

Jack London| 12.19.12 @ 5:18PM

The article about freedom I cited continues:

"Gun rights advocates also argue that guns provide the ultimate insurance of our freedom, in so far as they are the final deterrent against encroaching centralized government .... but contrary to holding centralized authority in check, broad individual gun ownership gives the powers-that-be exactly what they want.

A population of privately armed citizens is one that is increasingly fragmented, and vulnerable. Private gun ownership invites retreat into extreme individualism ... and nourishes the illusion that I can be my own police, or military. The NRA would have each of us steeled for impending government aggression, but ... yet it seems clear that armed militias, at least in theory, would provide a superior check on autocratic government.

... nothing suits power so well as extreme individualism... political and corporate interests aim at “individualization,” since it is far easier to manipulate a collection of individuals than a community. Guns undermine community. Their pervasive presence sow apprehension, suspicion, mistrust and fear, all corrosive of community and civic cooperation. To that extent guns give license to autocratic government.

Our gun culture promotes a fatal slide into extreme individualism. It fosters a society of atomistic individuals, isolated before power — and one another — and in the aftermath of shootings such as at Newtown, paralyzed with fear. That is not freedom, but quite its opposite."

nathan| 12.19.12 @ 5:34PM

Sigh. I'm sorry I'm so sick to death of the nonsense I've been reading that my good manners is being put to the test. Undeniable FACT. USA Today says that .00001 percent of gun owners are criminals or mental cases. So make a case that you can craft any law that addresses them and not the law abiding citizens.

And I'm sorry what really undermines community is electronics. When I was growing up as kid I knew my neighbors. Now kids spend all their time with their electronic "toys". That's the real problem.

And and please the Founders were about defending the people against the government. The Feinsteins of Europe in the 20's and 30's told Jews what they needed to defend themselves. How did THAT work out? YOU ALL DON'T NEED THOSE "ASSAULT" WEAPONS. Marek Edelman going up against the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto found fighting ONLY with pistols don't get it. And if a solar flare takes out a lot of the grid here, gun controllers, Jack here included will find out that those "assault" guns are the only thing that will give them a chance against the mobs.

nathan| 12.19.12 @ 5:40PM

Read Gene Healy's column. The fact here is that the incident we're talking about is VERY rare, and we cannot base policy on something that happens this seldom. If people are concerned about child safety, then go after alcohol which is responsible for more children dying than guns. Where is the call for draconian measures to curb alcohol related children's deaths? Since people who drive and abuse alcohol kill more kids than guns, how about draconian "car" control?

This is all bloody nonsense. I am not not prepared to give up fundamental freedoms because of something that as Healy points out happens to the average school about once in 6,000 YEARS. If the rest of you want to go quietly to the Umschlagplatz, BE MY GUEST. I'm not going to join you.

Jack London| 12.19.12 @ 6:02PM

I don't think the country will now not tolerate a policy response, Nathan, and as Obama has just made clear this includes the everyday 30 so shot dead in other all too common events. The 'freedom' for a suburban housewife to keep a copy of a battlefield weapon looks totally stupid to the whole world.

Thom| 12.19.12 @ 6:28PM

Name me a class of weapon today that has never been a battlefield weapon at some time?

The Brown Bess killed tens of thousands on the battlefield in the 1770s. Single shot shotguns killed multiple tens of thousands on the battlefields in the 1860 before being replaced by single shot rifled muskets that killed hundreds of thousands on the battlefield. Bolt action rifles were the mainstay of battlefield weapons for nearly 60 years and killed tens of millions on the battlefield. Revolvers were used on the battlefields for over 70 years before being replaced by Semi-auto pistols that have been used since the early 1900s. Semi-auto carbines and main battle rifles were common on the battle fields for about 12 years before being replaced by either selective or full auto versions. The US government sold millions of M1 Carbines to US citizens and hundreds of thousands of M1 Garand to civilians. Tell me the functional difference between an AR-15 and an M1 Carbine Jack? There is none. The fool here is the one that takes yesterday’s technology to today’s technology fight. Even house wives understand that. Your circular logic has no non-battle field weapons on a list because all weapons are born of “war”.

Sporting is as much of a euphemism as Assault is. Your symbolism over substance straw dogs are going to hunt for you anymore. Move to England, be “safe”.

Jack London| 12.19.12 @ 6:59PM

Nothing you say makes sense when it comes to people keeping AR-15s at home. Keep them on ranges under controlled conditions if you must.

I agree with Nathan by the way about the impact of electronics - the TV has been the big one really - but that just makes the point about fragmentation and the siege mentality even more.

Thom| 12.19.12 @ 7:31PM

You are entitled to your opinions but I’m not concerned about criminal attacks at my gun range for the same reasons the Cops are concerned about being attacked at the Police Station and opinion in light of centuries of evidence to the contrary is not a valid starting point for individual rights. A licensed right is a privilege and privilege is what you seek to make out of purely cosmetic differences between weapons within the same class to then make the entire class subject to the logic you refuse to acknowledge up front. I know the game. You won’t touch my point that the AR-15 or any other M-16 look alike is no different in function and effect than weapons that have been readily available for going on 60 years. Why? What are you afraid of? The Truth? Or do you simply distrust people based solely on what weapon they have in hand?

nathan| 12.20.12 @ 9:31AM

Jack: Go back to what I wrote about gun control in the 30's. I have no doubt that people felt "safe" back then too, just like you do now. I'll tell you what. When they come for you like they came for the Jews and the Gypsies and others, remember this exchange. As they herd you into those camps, remember how SAFE you are. Oh by the way, gun control existed in Rwanda too. That benefited the Tutsi's didn't it? You know how THEY were killed? With machetes. Tell us all how gun control helped THEM.

Bloody nonsense, all bloody nonsense. They didn't think a Holocaust could happen there either. And when it happens to you, you'll be so SHOCKED. Like I said, go to quietly to the Umschlagplatz, get on those cattle cars. Don't exxpect me to join you.

Stan Redmond| 12.21.12 @ 3:56PM

I don't know for a fact but I'm pretty certain the AR15 has never been a battlefield weapon. The US gov't doesn't issue these.

Pecos Pete| 12.19.12 @ 5:35PM

Jack "I never ever liked a Conservative" London: Your quote above is sooooo intellectual. I'm impressed, not. Obviously written by someone who has never experienced the community of gun owners. Try visiting a gun show sometime.

Thom| 12.19.12 @ 6:38PM

By your reasoning Jack, Switzerland should have been a complete neurotic sh.thhole after hundreds of years of having every able bodied male possess and know how to use whatever the weapons of the time were in their homes at the ready. The Swiss are quiet outgoing and friendly people and they don’t make love to their arsenals at night. Just don’t insult their intelligence too often in their presence.

Jack London| 12.19.12 @ 6:54PM

If you are so concerned about this you really must keep up to date with reality - the Swiss have banned all home ammunition now and shooting takes place only at ranges. And previously they had a proper militia as there was no standing army. What we have is 30,000 deaths by gun a year.

Thom| 12.19.12 @ 7:45PM

Half are suicides. Seen Japan’s per capita suicide rate? We going to solve suicides in light of evidence people find a way to kill themselves in larger per capita numbers in Japan where gun ownership is virtually forbidden? The bulk of our “gun violence” is ethnic based and directly traceable to fatherless young males from broken homes or unwed mothers. Remove that component from our society and we are closer to all those Utopian places people like you compare us to. I see a very cost effective solution and small portion of our population that results in the bulk of our mayhem. You won’t touch that will you? You are willing to single out a cosmetic straw dog to advance your agenda but won’t actually touch the root of the problem at the source will you?

Thom| 12.19.12 @ 8:06PM

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.

What changed after 2007 is that that their 50 round allotments for their full auto 550 series went to the local arsenals which are very local and frequent compared to here but they still have all the rest at home including ammo for the de milled military semi-auto rifles. The Swiss compete in very large competitions frequently and are required by law to do so to meet their requirements under law. They aren’t sitting at home with everything locked in an arsenal. Their arsenals are like our public schools within walking distance.

Anthony| 12.19.12 @ 8:46PM

"Private gun ownership invites retreat into extreme individualism"
Jack London's favorite author has spilled the totalitarian beans, sort of speak. Notice the repeated references to "extreme individualism".
Translation: a free individual is a threat to the central state. An armed society stands in the way of totalitarianism.
Well done Jack, go polish your jackboots, like the good little fascist that you are.

Stan Redmond| 12.21.12 @ 3:18PM

Have you seen a library lately? There are books about every topic you can imagine. Real and fake even. And all these individuals are readin by themselves. You don't 'need' 50 thousand books in the same building. You don't even need 10 books about the same topic. That's not what the founders had in mind. Who needs a TV too? TVs didn't even exist when that barbaric consitution, that was written by genocidal racist slave owners, yet nearly every house in America has one, some more than 1. Children could get their hands on TVs and see something they shouldn't see. Someone can walk up to anyone and claim to be a journalist without even having a license.

Riff Raff| 12.19.12 @ 6:39PM

My goodness, are YOU still here? Have you not embarrassed yourself enough here? You make not one single valid point. Not one.

Conservatives do not "reign." We are free. Leftists wish to "reign" over others, thus denying freedom.

Gun Control we already have. What is being proposed is gun bans, veiled by the euphemism "reasonable controls."

Guns are specifically designed already to "kill people." That is their function and purpose. It is the intention of the owner that is in question. My semi-auto rifle will never be used to kill innocents. I know this because I have control over my weapon. You do not have control over even your own mouth.

The 2nd Amend. is about a freely armed citizeny as a last bastion against tyranny. Read the founding documents, dummy.

You are clearly the dumbest stump on these pages. You are a tiresome, dim-witted fool. You are boring and ill-informed, and utterly incapable of processing data intelligently.

Jack London| 12.19.12 @ 6:56PM

"My semi-auto rifle will never be used to kill innocents. I know this because I have control over my weapon"

I expect Lanza's mother said the same.

Riff Raff| 12.19.12 @ 7:50PM

Lanza belonged in an asylum and his mother tried to get him there. The GOVERNMENT failed her in this effort. And you want to trust GOVERNMENT with exclusive ownership of all weapons? You are clearly insane.

spike59| 12.20.12 @ 5:33AM

"My gun will never be used to kill innocents. I know this because the state has control over my weapon"

I expect Germany's Jewish population in the '30's said the same

Stan Redmond| 12.21.12 @ 3:12PM

Do you have armed security at your Fortune 10 company?

Alan's Girl| 12.19.12 @ 4:26PM

"I pray like my family's safety depends on God but prepare as if it depends on me."

Most memorable comment of my day,
Thank you.

Thom| 12.19.12 @ 6:04PM

If it hasn’t been obvious from the beginning of time, Tigers, Scorpions and Venomous snakes do what they do and no amount of effort at reasoning with such mindsets will get you anything but worked up for no end or dead for no purpose.

There comes a time when you have to reach for that rock and put it good use. That time will come. Tigers, Scorpions and Venomous Snakes do what they do. They can’t help themselves. That’s why there are Tigers, Scorpions and Venomous Snakes in children’s stories to teach them early on that the world is not made up of just Rabbits and Lemmings.

I don’t reason with Rattlesnakes or follow Lemmings off a cliff. Get you a good pile of rocks and be prepared to use them. Even Tigers give a wide berth to Wolverines.

JmsA| 12.19.12 @ 9:32PM

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. " --Thomas Jefferson

The which only keeps us from tyranny is adherence to the mandates of God, the Constitution, and weapons in the hands of private citizens.

JmsA| 12.19.12 @ 9:35PM

Correction: meant to write: That which...

JD| 12.20.12 @ 1:31AM

Jack London's article today is one of his most absurd yet.

For a long while, it simply complains that people have guns, offering no reasons whatsoever.

Then it complains that we're not "free" if people have guns because we're afraid to confront lunatics because they might have guns. This is absurd, because that fear exists even with gun bans. Lunatics don't follow laws! Not fearing lunatics is a reason to ALLOW guns, not ban them!

After whining for a while that free speech might be restricted because people fear reprisals by gunmen, Jack's article complains about the exact opposite - people being too bold in their free speech because they have guns to protect themselves from criticism.

Jack seems to see no contradiction in having it both ways. As he and Purp always do, they find someone capable of stringing words together that support their ideas, then cite their words like unquestionable Gospel. Critical analysis is sorely lacking.

More Articles by Peter Ferrara

More Articles From The Public Policy

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

May 17, 2013 | Peter Hannaford

After Obamacare

May 16, 2013 | Matt Purple

Looking Back — And Forward

May 15, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

Lies About Libya

May 14, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

Bouncing Ball Politics

May 8, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/19/fewer-guns-more-crime

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|44 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|39 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|52 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|78 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|27 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|39 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|17 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|8 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Did Virgina Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

Romney Donors Targeted by IRS?

Kaylin Bugos | 12:32PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.