The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Public Policy
Print Email
Text Size

The Public Policy

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?

By on 1.22.13 @ 6:06AM

Or are they the real killer?

The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state’s recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don’t know — and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don’t have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.

Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (152) |

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.22.13 @ 7:06AM

Bad gun laws don't kill people; oh, wait, maybe they do help people kill people.

markenoff| 1.22.13 @ 3:26PM

Guns don't kill people. The laws of physics kill people.

Bill8472| 1.22.13 @ 3:42PM

Define a "bad" gun.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.22.13 @ 4:14PM

...One in the hands of a bad guy...

spike59| 1.24.13 @ 2:54PM

Hello Kitty Bubble Gun...i hear that, in the hands of a 5 yr old, they're LETHAL

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 7:52AM

Sowell as usual is almost totally wrong. In the UK, handgun control is extremely effective - there are only about 30-40 gun homicides a year from all types of weapon.

He's right that there are many weapons in the US - but that's no reason to give up and do nothing.

Frank Drackman| 1.22.13 @ 8:43AM

OMG, I mean every day I'm soooooooooooooooooooo woried that I'm gonna get shot..............
So move to Eng-a-land if they're so great.

Frank "aim low boys, they're riding shitland ponies" Drackman

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 8:44AM

Jack London,

Answer the question I asked you last week after demonstrating the rates of gun ownership to gun homicide vary wildly across the world,

Is it the law or the culture?

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 9:05AM

John,

Of course we have a culture of having guns as part of the American tradition. But I think you are suggesting something else - that sections of American society are more violent and so more likely to use guns. I think we have discussed this before and it looks to me like other countries with big urban centers, gangs, alcohol and drug-fuelled nightlife and great inequality - such as England - would have many more gun homicides if many guns were around. And just looks at places where there are lots of guns in poor areas of Brazil and South Africa.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 10:16AM

Jack London,

You put your words into my mouth and then argue with yourself. If you don't mind, I'll articulate my positions for myself.

The U.K. homicide rate is 1/4 hours. Half our homicides are handguns (long guns are 5% of that). If you eliminated firearm homicides completely and assume those murders would not be committed by other means we would have a firearm homicide rate lower than the U.K.'s and still have twice the homicide rate.

How do you explain that?

The U.S. homicide rate at just under 5 per 100,000 is lower than the world average of just under 7 per 100,000. Now explain how gun ownership rate everywhere else is lower than ours and, with the notable exception of Western Europe, homicide rates are generally higher. Certainly, the Americas and Africa have staggering homicide rates despite their paucity of firearms. To use your arguments of correlation, I would argue that to reduce the homicide rate in sub-Saharan Africa we should give them guns.

So, is it guns or culture?

Now explain how our homicide rate has been steadily decreasing, along with much of the rest of the world, since 1980 despite an increase in firearms in the U.S.

Von Mises Jr| 1.22.13 @ 10:27AM

It is clear that statistics demonstrate that gun ownership decreases violent crime since the criminals know they may get shot. There is also the anecdotal evidence that all the lunatics that commit mass murders go to gun-free school zones or the Aurora Movie Theatre that was gun free.

But the issue is not as Dr. Sowell describes. The Constitution does not enumerate the Power to the Federal government to restrict gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment is a reaffirmation and establishes the right to form Militias.

Our rights are repeatedly infringed upon unconstitutionally by DC. But there is a fundamental difference between redistribution of wealth or some other issues versus basic "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." So ObamaCare must be repealed and our gun rights secure unless we are not enjoying the most basic rights from God protected by our Constitution.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 11:39AM

John,

I'd expect the underlying homicide to be higher in the US because although cities such as Marseille and Manchester have tough areas they are not as tough as Oakland and south-side Chicago.

You're on the wrong track with Africa and South America as guns are heavily used in murders and in Africa, in wars. Brazil has a horrible gun problem.

Crime overall has been coming down in the western world but our gun death rate stands out, and it isn't just gun hits and robberies, but a lot of crimes of passion and accidents, plus a raised suicide rate for young men. Read some of the stories at https://twitter.com/GunDeaths and you'll see how guns play out to raise our death rate.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 1:42PM

Jack London,

See: http://www.census.gov/compendi.....2s0309.pdf

Notice that, with the exception of New Orleans, the highest homicide rates are in gun controlled areas. I've called New Orleans "the next Detroit" for at least two decades. They started electing blank mayors in the 60's and taxed the mobile wealth right out of the city.

Africa and South America have low rates of gun ownership. Where is the lower homicide rate? War deaths are not homicides and are not included in homicide statistics. Brazil's gun problem comes in spite of severly restricted gun ownership.

You are making my argument. But you still cannot answer the question, can you?

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 2:38PM

You're not making any sense John. All I can see is a denial of the obvious: we have a lot of guns, a lot of inequality and everyday tensions, and a lot of gun deaths compared with other countries that we normally associate with.

The gun controlled areas are irrelevant because there are no border controls at state or city lines.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 3:48PM

Jack London,

So your conclusion is that in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane we must disarm the law-abiding. Try enforcing the laws we already have, first. If they are unenforceable, blame that on stupid liberal politicians.

And to think you didn't like trickle-down economics.

The denial of the obvious is clearly with you. With 270,000,000 firearms in circulation you have an immense tactical problem. How many do you think the criminals will turn in while their targets are disarming? As I said before, you could confiscate 269,000,000 guns and have no impact on firearm violence.

But we've been over this ground before. You'll keep your utopian fantasy as a mask for a fascist gun-grab while those of us from which you need fear nothing resist.

I don't fear gun violence. If I did, I would move. If you do, move. Anything else is typical liberal social engineering of one party to the presumed benefit of another.

Do you prefer Lefty-Lemon or Goofy-Grape.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 4:52PM

Well John you are basically in the camp of 'we have so many guns there's no point in trying'. So no:
- universal background checks
- registration
- gun locks
- gun safes
- insurance
- health enquiries
etc.

In your world we'll just go on with senseless deaths from senseless arguments and accidents, untraceable gun trafficking, an AR-15 massacre every year, and so on. Thankfully your policy decision to do nothing, it's too broke, is not shared by the president.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 5:18PM

Jack London,

Not so. The point is not to try to disarm the people, just the criminal and insane. Your brand of gun control is useless - as I have demonstrated repeatedly - and antithetical to freedom which you evidently abhor.

Thankfully my view is not shared by the President who may just find this his Donnybrook. His simpering lapdog, Mr. Reid, won't even touch it.

As I said, if you live in fear of guns, move. You can control your own destiny. You don't need me and I don't need you. And no one needs a lickspittle like Jack London.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 5:31PM

You reduce everything to the personal - it's all 'me me me' with you John, which makes you part of the problem as you don't see a problem for the country. I think we'll see some real change but I doubt it will affect you.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 6:38PM

Jack London,

I do not seek to control you. You seek to control me. Yet you say this is about ME?

I don't care if you own a firearm. I care what you do with it. You don't want ME to own a firearm without submitting to your idea of reasonable rules. Yet this is about ME!

You claim I deny the obvious. Yet when I present you with facts as counterexamples to your assertions, you come up with more unsupported conclusions and appeal to their reasonableness.

Still you will not answer the single question I pose to you. Is it because you do not like the answer? Does it conflict with your vision of a perfectible society?

Every unfortunate circumstance can be eliminated by yet another rule. Your way leads to slavery. It takes a willing fool to tread that path. Enjoy what miserable little bit of your life your false god will permit you to enjoy. I don't think it will affect you.

Von Mises Jr| 1.22.13 @ 12:10PM

John, there is a lesson to be learned here. I have insulted and belittled the trolls all morning and Joan London's kid responds to you making sure he makes it clear he is not talking to me. I have harassed Perp for two days and he barely responded.
So if we argue with them, they win. They get paid $10 per hour and disrupt our conversations. But if you ignore or insult them, we win.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 1:42PM

Von Mises Jr,

I am a failed sinner. I cannot always keep my own advice. You are, as usual, quite correct.

Stan Redmond| 1.22.13 @ 8:14PM

If only we confiscated machetes in Rwanda.

merlin| 1.22.13 @ 10:49AM

Jack, noone is propossing doing nothing. Armed guards and/or armed teachers have been proposed by the NRA and their ilk. And an OBVIOUS thing to do would be to take the guns out the the hands of the crazies and the criminal, but to get the most bang for the buck, that would involve RACIAL PROFILING, so no, we cannot do that, even though it would improve the lives of minorities. Makes a guy wonder if the progressives, liberals and aclu types are racist or something.

mike 3/505| 1.22.13 @ 12:18PM

The "most bang for the buck," would be to prevent the Federal, State or Localities from deliberately preventing the exercise of their Second Amendment rights by teachers, administrators & janitors. Getting rid of "gun free school zones," would be the easiest, most cost effective way to instantly enhance security at any school. The mere fact of signing and publicizing its elimination, would automatically create ambiguity in the mind of a potential attacker as to whether or not there might be resistance at his target.

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 2:57PM

Common sense. Too bad The Village Idiots don't have any.

PS: Missed you at the contest over the weekend. And, if you were there, I still missed you.

nathan| 1.22.13 @ 1:31PM

Sir: I'm sorry you're wrong. A New Statesman article (a very liberal publication in GB) made it clear that gun control is a failure. Anyone who wants a gun can get anything they want up too full auto IE REAL assault weapons. Kids get any guns they want and carry them to school. The low murder rate is not indicative of the availabilty of firearms. The problem with comparisons between countries is that it ignores differences in language (yes we don't speak the same "english"), culture, legal system and other things. To take one element, guns, and say that and only that accounts for all the differences is nonsense. And besides the original gun control laws in GB were not passed to control murder rates which in the 1920's were already low. They were passed in response to the Russian revolution. The government wanted to limit the ability of the people to do in GB what the Russian people did there. Those laws had zero impact on the murder rate. Do your homework sir.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 7:59AM

This column is such BS. Everyone in Europe knows that their countries are much safer than the U.S. because they have better gun laws, and no one is asking to spread guns around there because it's an absurd idea.

Just so you know guys, you have to know that your "minds" on the right do this little trick every time the talk about gun control. They always talk about the percentage increase in gun crimes in this or that place in Europe.

But if London had 5 armed robberies decades ago and today has 10, then yes, that would be a 0 increase.

But if you look at the real stats on gun violence across all industrialized nations, the U.S. is by far one of the worse. And many times worse than all the other countries. From the U.N. and the OSCE.
The whole of the U.K. is safer than Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12.....html?_r=1&

Now, I think America is violent for many reasons, including the lack of gun laws. But gun laws do help.

And just to state it, I think everybody, except the mentally ill, should be able to own a rifles and/or pistols. 10 bullet clips are more than enough, and they shouldn't be semis or autos.

Albertus Magnus| 1.22.13 @ 9:18AM

"Everyone knows" is an "ad populum" logical fallacy. No, everyone does NOT know." Gun control disarms VICTIMS, not criminals. No amount of obfuscation and false citations can alter reality. Get used to it.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 9:34AM

"Gun control disarms VICTIMS, not criminals."

Wow, an absolute statement with no evidence to back it up. It's just a dumb notion.

The United States is more dangerous than the rest of the industrialized world, and guns are part of the problem. And guess what, I provided evidence to support my statement, unlike you.

Albertus Magnus| 1.22.13 @ 10:51AM

No evidence? Go visit Chicago, Detroit, or Washington DC. Criminals are walking the streets carrying guns, but victims and potential victims have been disarmed by statute. This is the way it IS. Look around you. You have provided no evidence, no facts, nothing. You offer no logic, only half-witted opinions that masquarade as "knowledge." Worthless.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 1:44PM

Albert Magnum,

What? What? An op-ed in the New York Times isn't good enough for you? I'm quite shocked!

JD| 1.22.13 @ 10:20AM

Like all gun-control advocates, Arnie restricts his statistics to "gun violence" rather than considering overall violence.

This is because Arnie know that the argument against gun control is that legal gun ownership serves as a deterrent to crime. In order to avoid honestly confronting this argument, Arnie excludes they type of crime that guns might deter from his considerations. He does this because he is dishonest.

Anyone who has read even one of Sowell's books knows that they end with dozens of pages of citations. That is because Sowell deals in facts far more than most people. And that is why his conclusions differ from those of the Left.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 10:23AM

No actually JD, the statistics by the UN and OECD that I posted have violence statistics also.
And the U.S. fails/exceeds at that also.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12.....html?_r=1&

JD| 1.22.13 @ 10:44AM

Unlike Sowell's citations, these numbers do not display "before and after" around changes in gun control laws.

Moreover, as with misleading Leftist claims about European health care, there are reporting problems here. A lot of apples vs oranges.

Here's an exercise for you, Arnie. Try looking for articles that oppose your point, instead of supporting your point, and see if you can counter their claims. Start with this one, and its many citations:

http://citizenwells.wordpress......t-weapons/

JD| 1.22.13 @ 10:52AM

Also the charts here:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/.....tiane.html

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 11:12AM

JD, the citizen wells link is a mess. For one it contends, "The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

Yes, these are all murders, not just from guns. But all it is saying is that the U.K. is more dangerous than the rest of Europe. So what? This isn't really an argument against gun control. It just goes to show how safe Europe is.

And then it goes on, "A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

But that's funny, this was a political report by U.K. Conservatives, and not any official report by Scotland Yard for example.

But I see nothing that suggests there is more gun crime in the U.K. and that more guns would prevent the supposed higher rate of violent crime.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 11:16AM

And the Telegraph ends with this, which actually points to the high rates of binge drinking in the UK.

"Separate figures disclosed in May showed that the number of people requiring hospital treatment after being seriously hurt in street fights or assaults has risen 50 per cent in five years.

More than 20 people a day were taken to hospital accident and emergency departments in England last year after being hit, kicked, scratched or bitten. Alcohol is blamed as a factor in half of the incidents and raises further questions over 24-hour drinking.

Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. “

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 11:55AM

Yes Arnie - here's a good link that explains things.

http://rayrayallday.com/2013/0.....ent-crime/

JD| 1.22.13 @ 1:44PM

After all my efforts to explain that we must track not only gun violence, but ALL violence to see gun control's impact on it, Arnie demonstrates a refusal to understand that by actively complaining that I cited non-gun violence statistics.

And then he dismisses unfavorable data because it wasn't collected by governments trying to justify their agendas.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 3:45PM

JD, the U.K. Has a broader definition of violent crime than the U.S.

And the U.S. still has more murders by a gun than the U.K.

And you contend that guns prevent crime, but you have provided no evidence to support that.

ebonystone| 1.22.13 @ 2:58PM

UNODC figures:
U.S. homicides per 100,000 --- 4.2
middle Africa -------------------- 20.8
southern Africa ----------------- 30.5
western Africa ------------------ 15.4
Caribbean ------------------------ 16.9
Central America --------------- 28.5
South America----------------- 20.0

Looks like the U.S. is doing better than most of the world.

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 6:27PM

You are confusing The Village Idiots with facts. They go to twitter for the real scoop?

nathan| 1.22.13 @ 1:41PM

Ask the Jews who were disarmed in the 30's how much safer THEY were. No repeat no act of genocide was carried out against an armed target population, NOT ONE in the 20th century. Every victim group was legally disarmed first. We hear constantly it can't happen here. In GB itself maybe not, so far. But ask the aboriginies in Australia about it "can't happen here". We can make a strong case that the settlers did what amounted to an act of genocide against them. Noble British indeed. In prosecuting the Boer war, the British set up concentration camps (where have we heard THAT term?) and thousands, tens of thousands? of women and children died in those camps. However "civilized" the British have been at home, they exported a lot of barbarity abroad. Don't say it "can't happen here". To the aboriginies in Australia, it DID happen.

Which is why you don't disarm. Franklin was right and we ignore him at our peril. Those who sacrifice essential liberties for a LITTLE safety (and honest folks that's all we're talking about here, VERY little safety) deserve neither.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 8:01AM

"that would be a 0 increase"*

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 8:02AM

"that would be a 100 percent increase"*

Frank Drackman| 1.22.13 @ 8:41AM

Are you talking about the increase in the Social Security Tax?? That goes away when you make the paltry sum of $115,000....
Oh wait, that was only a 50% increase.

Frank

PatInPitt| 1.22.13 @ 9:00AM

Sowell claims a 100-fold increase in armed robberies, not a 100% increase. 100%=2-fold. 100-fold=10,000% increase.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 8:13AM

hey Arnie - are you following the stories at https://twitter.com/GunDeaths

and body count/map of these tweets at http://www.slate.com/articles/.....oting.html

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 8:16AM

No I was not. Cool. Thanks Jack.

JD| 1.22.13 @ 10:38AM

Leftists: Doubling down on dishonesty since... time began.

Yet again you presume that the world agrees that your ideas will reduce violence, when that's the entire point of contention. As I am forced to say every time you post, Jack, you begin every conversation with the presumption that everyone in the world agrees with you on the contested point, that you don't need to support your position on that point, and that the conversation can be restricted to lambasting people who don't accept the conclusions that your presumption implies.

And you seem utterly incapable of comprehending that you do this.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 12:52PM

Go read some of the stories about how and why Americans die from guns JD. The links I posted are neutral - they just point to news stories, such as teh kid who took out his family in Albuquerque. Here's a link on that one:

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_.....3-children

JD| 1.22.13 @ 1:41PM

Wow. Just... wow!

He doesn't get it! He can't get it!

No matter how I try to explain that the ONLY contested point is whether gun control laws make things better or worse, he STILL thinks that he's making a meaningful argument by merely citing gun deaths! He STILL acts as though we all agree that gun control laws reduce deaths!

Incredible!

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 3:52PM

JD, you have listed figures for all murders in the UK. Per capita the US still has a higher murder rate. WTF are you on about?

MikeBee| 1.22.13 @ 8:26PM

JD,
If you go back and read this comment string, you will clearly see Sowell's argument proven, time and again. Over and over, liberals make arguments completely devoid of facts, citing opinion articles and twitter feeds. When I was a kid, most folks scoffed at what they called "old wives' tales." But today's liberals, also scoffing at these old wives' tales, have simply replaced the old tales with new ones. So, you get statements like, "Everyone knows that Europe....." "If others agree that I'm right, then I MUST be," thinks the liberal, relying on the concensus of those around him to validate his new wives' tales. Concensus does not make science. Upon feeling the side of the elephant, all the blind men came to the concensus that it was a cow. Thomas Sowell is having a hearty laugh, reading the liberals' nonsense posted here! His points are well taken.....

Frank Drackman| 1.22.13 @ 8:39AM

Took the Miss-us and 17 year old daughter out to the shootin' range yesterday, seemed like the thang to do, on that Holiday that celebrates a man shot with a hunting rifle.
and not one of those fancy schmancy indoor ranges, where you don't even have to move to change targets, one in one of Alabama's great Natural Forests, 2+ hrs of shootin cost $4, and would have been free except I'm a pussy and don't wanta get a ticket from Ranger Billy Bob.
Mrs. Drackman shot a smiley face pattern(Like Mel Gibson did in Lethal Weapon) with her Beretta 92FS, Daughter #2 shot one 20 oz diet pepsi plastic bottle after another with her East German production Makarov 9mmX18(her future....I see a Moe-Sad Assasinatrix) and I shot the Remington 7600 30:06 at a life size photo of the Most Evil Man in the World,
Nick Satan, I mean Saban.
Till my shoulder was too sore(i.e. 8 shots, Hey, I spent 10K for that Rotator Cuff!)

Frank "I have a Scheme" Drackman

Nancy in NC| 1.22.13 @ 8:40AM

While Jack and Arnie have their love fest, a little reason might come in handy.

If gun control laws worked, there would be no gun deaths in the UK. After all, it's illegal to possess a handgun there.

What the two trolls fail to recognize is that criminals don't give a fig about laws...that's why they are criminals and why these horrible tragedies take place in so called gun free zones.

And don't forget...in the UK if one wants to make a splash, they blow something up. I suppose the two lefty morons prefer that sort of violence.

And while we're at it, why don't you look at the gun laws in Chicago and how effective they are. Or better yet, how did the gun control laws work in Connecticut?

Michele San Pietro| 1.22.13 @ 8:44AM

No, gun control laws don't control guns at all. Criminals will always find a way to get hold of a gun.

JoeS| 1.22.13 @ 8:47AM

Even if it were true that gun laws make us safer, and I am not saying they do, at what point does safety become more important than liberty?

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 8:58AM

"at what point does safety become more important than liberty?"

Way before someone massacres your kids in a school or at the movies

Frank Drackman| 1.22.13 @ 9:07AM

1,000,00o,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo INFINITY!!!% more women have been killed in Ted Kennedy's cars than by all the guns I've ever shot...

Frank "Dead Eye" Drackman

A. C. Santore| 1.22.13 @ 9:36AM

Without safety, there can be no liberty. Simple

Harry the Horrible| 1.22.13 @ 1:37PM

That is a non sequitur if I ever read one...

Harry the Horrible| 1.22.13 @ 9:53AM

Those who give up freedom for security will find that they have neither.

I'll keep my guns.

BTW: Take blacks and Hispanics out of the mix, and our crime rate looks as good or better than that of Europe.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 10:37AM

Harry the Horrible,

You point about who is committing violent crimes is well founded. But, to be fair, you would have to take similar cohorts out of their statistics as well. As I've said before, as long as I don't mess with another man's wife, engage in a drug turf war or close the bars on a Saturday night in the bad part of town I have a vanishingly small chance of becoming a statistic.

My greatest risk is a home break-in. If I'm home, I'd much prefer to be armed than disarmed.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 1:28PM

I think your comment inadvertently shows where we go wrong - you make a personal calculation rather than thinking about society as a whole. But apart from the immediate human costs, overall inequality as well as homicides cost us all in the short to long term.

Harry the Horrible| 1.22.13 @ 1:33PM

Anyone who lets "Society as Whole" determine what is right for him is taking an awful chance. Hell, that is what the Constitution and the Rule of Law are all about - protecting the minority from the majority or "Society as whole."

Harry the Horrible| 1.22.13 @ 1:36PM

I don't think taking blacks and Hispanics out of European crime statistics would improve them much.

ebonystone| 1.22.13 @ 3:18PM

In Europe, it's largely the Moslems rather than blacks or Hispanics (although to be sure, some of the Moslems are blacks) who are the disproportionate contributors to the crime rate.
In the Scandinavian countries, rape was virtually unknown 25-30 years ago; now there's an epidemic of rapes, about 99% committed by Moslems. And everywhere in Europe there has been a vast increase in crimes like muggings, arson, vandalism, etc. as the numbers of Moslems increase.
So far, murder rates have stayed below U.S. levels, but other crimes have reached or surpassed American levels. London is a more dangerous city than New York.

JD| 1.22.13 @ 10:34AM

Jack presents a false choice. Decreased liberty does not increase safety.

Like his cousin Arnie, he insists that "gun violence", not overall violence, is the only thing impacted by gun control laws. Having made this presumption, and assumed (as he always does) that everyone else shares it, he avoids the truth about the relationship between gun control laws and violence without ever addressing it.

Buck Ofama| 1.22.13 @ 11:49AM

@Jackoff in London

>"Way before someone massacres your kids in a school or at the movies"

...or, more likely, kills more slowly with drugs.

nathan| 1.22.13 @ 1:46PM

You get this worked up about alcohol? How many gun murders in this country for the most recent reportable year? 9,000 and change. How many driving while undeer the influence deaths? Around 10,000. CDC reported several years ago that drinking is responsible for a total of 75,000 deaths a year, far more than all sources of gun deaths. Children are far more at risk from alcohol than from a gun in a school. You ready to ask for pr0hibition to come back? Or do kids killed on the highway by someone crossing the center line by someone who has been "celebrating" too much not mean a lot to you?

OregonBuzz| 1.22.13 @ 9:23AM

At the governmental level, the insistence to promote more "gun control" laws has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with control. To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens.
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus

Frank Drackman| 1.22.13 @ 9:26AM

Not many motor vehicle fatalities in Vatican City either....

Albertus Magnus| 1.22.13 @ 9:28AM

Gun control is not intended to control crime or violence. The same politicians who fight tooth and nail to disarm victims also fight tooth and nail to RELEASE criminals from prisons and jails. 2000 years ago Julius Caesar paid gangs to rob, rape, and polunder the streets of Rome while he was away in Gaul slaughtering Germanic Tribespeoples. This was an intentional plan to destabilize the government of Pompey. When Caesar returned, crime stopped and Caesar was hailed a great hero, while riding his popularity to dictatorial power. Today, politicians do not do something so crass as to actually hire criminals, they just disarm victims and release criminals from prisons and jails allowing them to ply their trade. Politicians then just sit back and wait for the inevitable result, a result they caused to exploit for political advantage. Gun control is politics and it is nothing else.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.22.13 @ 9:34AM

Actually, some politicians still do hire criminals, but that's another story for another day.

markenoff| 1.22.13 @ 3:32PM

They give them Obamaphomes to make it easier for them to coordinate their flash mob riots.

A. C. Santore| 1.22.13 @ 9:34AM

I have great respect for Thomas Sowell and his ideas, but I need to add one thing.

The real reason why the controllers are so intent on what they're doing is so that they can confiscate guns. The 2nd Amendment is working and the controllers can't get it repealed, so they have to do a series of work-arounds.

p.s. I note that the Chinese want Americans disarmed. I wonder why that matters to the Chinese. Hmmmmm.

Also, when law-abiding citizens are limited to a 7-shot magazine, the law-breaking citizens will have a 30-7 advantage - with automatic weapons to boot.

Not good.

Albertus Magnus| 1.22.13 @ 9:35AM

It should be noted that in the last 120 years there have been nine genocides, and in each and every case the population was disarmed by gun control laws before millions were systematically murdered by their own governments.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee that the government does not have a monopoly on the power to kill, a power that governments have historically used to murder millions ot their own people for purely political reasons. In the USA, gun control "laws" will not be met with "resistance." They will be met with outright refusal. This is the way it is.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 9:39AM

So guys, where is the evidence that gun control in other countries actually results in more gun crime?

And please, provide actual data instead of your absurd notions of "criminals" taking over.

....waiting...

JD| 1.22.13 @ 10:31AM

Like all gun-control advocates, Arnie restricts his statistics to "gun violence" rather than considering overall violence.

This is because Arnie know that the argument against gun control is that legal gun ownership serves as a deterrent to crime. In order to avoid honestly confronting this argument, Arnie excludes most of the crimes that guns might deter from his considerations. He does this because he is dishonest.

Victims of crimes do not care what weapons the criminals use against them if the damage done to themselves is the same in either case.

If Arnie's logic made sense, then we should have stopped using planes in WWII due to the number of Americans who died due to mechanical failures in our planes, without considering how many more would have died due to the lack of air support.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 10:44AM

"Like all gun-control advocates, Arnie restricts his statistics to "gun violence" rather than considering overall violence."

No actually JD, the statistics by the UN and OECD that I posted have violence statistics also.
And the U.S. fails/exceeds at that also.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12.....html?_r=1&

JD| 1.22.13 @ 10:58AM

These are not "before and after" numbers surrounding a change in gun control laws. Moreover, they are flawed in many ways, primarily the UK's famed under-reporting. Finally, the violent crime rate for the UK in your own chart exceeds the US's corresponding rate.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 10:47AM

"If Arnie's logic made sense, then we should have stopped using planes in WWII due to the number of Americans who died due to mechanical failures in our planes, without considering how many more would have died due to the lack of air support."

Are you suggesting that the American public is, or should be, in a state of war? If not, then your statement is completely irrelevant. If yes, you're crazy.

JD| 1.22.13 @ 10:56AM

Wow. It is truly amazing that you somehow think that you made a cogent counter-argument there.

Allow me to respond in kind:

"Arnie, your name has the letter 'A' in it, and there's no 'A' in 'gun', so your statement is completely irrelevant."

Being in a state of war has no relevance to the point that when you propose eliminating a means of self-defense due to its dangers to those you mean to defend, you must consider lives saved by elimination against lives lost due to reduction in defense.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 3:57PM

Yes JD, in the US far more murders happen because of guns, than are saved because of them. If you think otherwise, provide evidence. If you think that gun control leads to more deaths, or violence, then you have to provide evidence that this is the case.

nutbastard | 1.23.13 @ 5:37PM

"in the US far more murders happen because of guns, than are saved because of them. If you think otherwise, provide evidence."

Happily.

" There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually.

For the sake of argument, let's use the lowest cited number - 800,000 per year, and compare that to the number of gun homicides in 1993, the year of the study, at around ~16,000. That neatly makes a gun in 1993 50 times more likely to be used defensively than for murder, if we accept the low end number of 800,000 DGU's per year.

More recently, in 2005, there were ~11,300 gun homicides, which makes a gun in 2005 70 times more likely to be used for defense than murder.

If we accept the high end figure of 2.5 million, those two ratios go up to 156:1 and 221:1

The real figure probably lies somewhere in the middle at around 100:1. defense to murder.

Numbers are from the NIJ and the mentioned studies.

markenoff| 1.22.13 @ 3:36PM

Barack Obama has declared war on the productive.

markenoff| 1.22.13 @ 3:35PM

The burden is not on us to prove that "gun control in other countries actually results in more gun crime". The burden is on you to prove that more stringent gun control here in the US results in less total crime. But we already have counterexamples showing that here in the US more stringent gun control laws are correlated not only with higher levels of violent crime but higher levels of gun crime (see Chicago, NYC and DC).

Harry the Horrible| 1.22.13 @ 8:25PM

Don't need to prove that, moron.
You need to prove that gun control will lead to lowered crime rates, and there are no statistics in this country that point to that.
Not that that would justify gun control.
BTW, one of the worst attempts genocide last century was done with machetes.

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 10:57AM

Come take 'em if you can.

Don't forget that more murders are attributable to hammers and hands than to guns.

The gun control issue is simply another "crises that can't go to waste" to cause us to ignore the fiscal insanity of federal deficits (pork!), regulations, green energy (what a laugh!), castration of the military, KingOcare, etc.

markenoff| 1.22.13 @ 3:36PM

If you come for my guns you'll get my ammo first.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 11:40AM

"Don't forget that more murders are attributable to hammers and hands than to guns."

Sorry Pete but as you well know that is completely false. Look here: http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 12:20PM

Actually, Jack, I did misstate. I should have written:

"Don't forget that more murders are attributable to hammers and hands than to rifles."

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj.....ta-table-8

Riff Raff| 1.22.13 @ 12:38PM

You posted this statistic before, claiming that 65% of all homicides are committed with a firearm. The 65% number you cited then references all homicides, not just murders, according to the FBI website. This includes justifiable homicides and police killings. Justifiable homicides and police killings are almost exclusively by firearm. This skews the percentage upward. Furthermore, the percentage was over 80% in 2005, so the trend is a decline in percentage concurrent with more States adopting concealed carry policies. This demolishes your argument completely.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 12:53PM

They are all dead from guns - that's the point.

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 1:17PM

Per the FBI in 2011:

Knife Murders: 1,694
Hands, Feet Murders: 728
Clubs, Hammers: 496
Rifles: 323

So, tell us Jack, why are rifles the target of gun control proponents?

Totally dwarfing murder by "guns" is the number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 25,692. [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm]

So again, tell us Jack, why are rifles the target of gun control proponents?

And, Jack, you very well know that people do the killing, not the weapons. Thus, to follow your logic, people need to be outlawed, legislated out of existence, or banned from Earth.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 1:32PM

We need controls on all guns but for different reasons. Semi-auto assault weapons (and handguns) are being used in these awful massacres. Australia banned them after the Port Arthur massacre and hasn't had one since. Looks like the kid in Albuquerque may have used an AR-15 type.

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 1:50PM

It is very sad that a family was murdered in Albuquerque. Or anywhere else in the world for that matter. And, talking about mass murders, in Algeria the defeated al qaeda (or so the just elected president has said) killed how many unarmed workers?

The weapons used in the Albuquerque killings – a .22 rifle and an AR-15 rifle - belonged to his parents and were in the home legally and not locked up.

Bill8472| 1.22.13 @ 3:44PM

The NRA recommends locking up one's firearms unloaded, and keeping the ammo in a separate place, also under lock and key.

John Navratil| 1.22.13 @ 2:20PM

Jack London,

The mother and siblings were killed with a .22. The father was killed with the AR-15. Would you like to ban .22s now?

You're still more likely to be killed by lightning as to be massacred. That's cold comfort for the dead, but banning guns will not stop evil. The worst school massacre occurred in 1927 and involved a sick man and a bunch of dynamite. No guns at all, there.

In China, a knife wielding man scared children into the back a room which he locked and set fire with gasoline killing twelve. No guns there, either.

The common thread is psychosis. Gun restrictions will not affect that.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 2:56PM

John - can e at least agree that events such as Albuquerque are more likely to happen because of access to firearms?

And have a look at these two case studies from the past few days and let me know what you think. These are just everyday events in our country, but not in others:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime.....52151.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....Tiphoneapp

Albertus Magnus| 1.22.13 @ 6:29PM

No we can not agree. Because that is a false claim.

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 6:32PM

No, we can not agree that mass murder is more likely to happen because of access to firearms. If there are absolutely no firearms anywhere in the USA there would still be mass murder caused by the mentally unbalanced. If they want to do it, they will do it.

Riff Raff| 1.22.13 @ 6:34PM

Actually such incidents are more likely to occur because of a lack of access to guns by law abiding citizens. Murderers, even the crazy ones, target the unarmed and defenseless, the "gun free zones" your politicians dreamed up. They don't go to places where people will shoot back.

JD| 1.22.13 @ 1:48PM

Jack London wrote, "They are all dead from guns - that's the point."

That is indeed the only point Jack London makes. That gun control laws will reduce violence or deaths is NOT a point that Jack makes. In fact, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot comprehend that he even NEEDS to make it!

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 1:55PM

Well let's see- have a look at these two case studies and let me know what you think. These are just everyday events:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime.....52151.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....Tiphoneapp

JD| 1.22.13 @ 2:04PM

Again, you just don't get it. You're not even making a case! The ENTIRE question is whether the crimes deterred by legal gun ownership outnumber the increase in crime resulting from easy gun access. Unless you make a comparison of the two numbers, you're not even addressing the issue!

markenoff| 1.22.13 @ 3:42PM

You apparently cannot distinguish between someone who is killed accidentally by a gun or intentionally because they were a violent criminal attacking a law abiding citizen. Such as this incident:

A 22-year-old woman was at home alone in Dallas, Texas when a pair of home invaders, at least one of whom was armed, kicked in the front door. After retrieving a gun, the woman spotted the criminals as they were headed to the second floor of the house. The woman opened fire on the home invaders, striking one and causing both to flee. The wounded burglar collapsed just outside the front door and was later taken to a local hospital, where he died. NBC DFW, Dallas, Texas 10/18/12

Riff Raff| 1.22.13 @ 6:31PM

It's a stupid point. It does not address the problem. That you do not see a substantive legal and moral difference between murder and justifiable homicide is telling.

Harry the Horrible| 1.22.13 @ 8:28PM

Most were suicides. Losers finding a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Some of them needed killing.
Most of the murders were scum killing scum at no net loss to society.
I am not going get any more worked up about murders than I do about drunk drivers, drownings, household accidents, etc.

Drunken Sailor| 1.22.13 @ 12:51PM

Of course Jack, you ignore that even the WSJ says this stats are not totally accurate for the following reasons.

"The FBI collects this data from the states, except for Florida. Florida doesn't use the FBI's guidelines when reporting additional information about homicides. The FBI data don't capture all homicides. The states' reporting is voluntary, and the country's thousands of police agencies aren't consistent in how they report. Some states, including New York, reported no justifiable homicides at all for some years"

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 12:55PM

There are about 1000 firearm murders a year in Florida alone.

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 1:36PM

Jack, I am going to ask you to be honest, as I have been when I misstated above.

In Florida, according to the State of Florida (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/332e1b3d-2648-4b06-8be5-d322f340c95d/1971_fwd_murder_firearms.aspx):

Since 1971 there have been NO firearm murders that numbered greater than 890 in 1980. In fact, as the population of Florida has grown from 7,041,074 in 1971 to 18,905,048 in 2011, the ratio of death by firearm per population has declined from .0001176 in 1971 to .0000366. The number of firearm murders in 1971 were 628 and the corresponding number in 2011 was 691.

Your statement above, "There are about 1000 firearm murders a year in Florida alone." is obviously made to sway those who don't have enough sense to look up the facts. Why would you misstate facts? Do you have an ulterior motive? Of course you do.

So, tell us again, Jack, why are rifles the target of gun control proponents?

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 1:50PM

Ok - my turn for a correction - I was reading the total murders, not guns. But its' the best part of 1000 - that 691 means that 70% of all homicides are by guns... and 43% of those are not by handguns - what do you think that means?

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 1:54PM

Jack, do people commit murder just because they have access to a gun? Or, if they don't have access to a gun, do they turn to other weapons to commit the murder?

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 1:57PM

If you are trying to say that guns make no difference then why don't you arm yourself with a hammer rather than a gun?

JD| 1.22.13 @ 2:02PM

Really, Jack? Really?

As if making no difference in the desire to kill implies also making no difference in the ability to defend oneself?

You discredit yourself with such logic.

I bet you, Purp, and Arnie think that by coming here, you're confronting "evil conservatism" and preaching wisdom to fools. The trouble is, what you're actually doing is emboldening people on this site by showing them that the Left's best counter-arguments are weak and foolish.

I could do a better job making Leftist counter-arguments than you do.

Arnie| 1.22.13 @ 4:07PM

If that's really the case JD, you guys will nominate evn crazier people for election that won't be able to stand up to public scrutiny, and common sense, and won't get elected anyway. So either, you can accept data and facts, or you can reserve a room for your party in the asylum.

Legitimate rape, no evolution, more guns, trickle down economics, invasion of countries based on petty reasons, mandatory vaginal probes, reduced voting times.....really, stick with those ideas. You and the Republican party will go far with that.

JD| 1.22.13 @ 4:17PM

We have none of those ideas, but apparently an idea we SHOULD have is to lie more, since that's working so well for you.

nutbastard | 1.23.13 @ 5:50PM

Arnie, many of us are not pro-firearms because we are stereotypical 'conservative' cartoon characters. We are pro-firearms because we are pro-freedom.

I am pro-choice, I think creationism is ridiculous, I do not support the invasion of any foreign country by the US that does not present a legitimate threat (so none of the current ones), I oppose mandatory vaginal probes (and a lot of other 'mandatory' things) and I wish people would take more time when deciding to vote.

None of these things is inconsistent with the principles of liberty. It's called having a coherent political philosophy. Those who seek to rule are usually the least fit to rule. The same is true of those who seek to control (for what else is rule?).

markenoff| 1.22.13 @ 3:44PM

My 80 year old mother needs here gun for when the 22 year old punk comes at her with a hammer.

Riff Raff| 1.22.13 @ 12:43PM

Many people here do not seem to understand the situation. WE the People have a RIGHT to be armed. Period. The purpose of this is so that Government does not have a monopoly on the power to kill. Historically, Government has abused such a monopoly, murdering millions solely for political reasons. We will not give up our right to be armed and if Government demands that we be disarmed, we will refuse. This is absolute. There is no debate.

My question is, if government demands disarmament and we refuse, what then? What do you people propose? House by house confiscation? Will you kill those who refuse?

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 1:34PM

The question for you is whether your paranoia about government control is worth the damage that guns wreak in society. I take it your answer is yes.

JD| 1.22.13 @ 1:50PM

Another completely off-base point from Jack London.

He skips, yet again, any discussion of whether gun control laws will reduce deaths. He skips the root cause of shootings. And he ignores the parallels between America's path and that of other oppressive governments.

Riff Raff| 1.22.13 @ 6:43PM

Ask Jack London a simple, direct question, get no answer. This is normal.

dominic1955| 1.22.13 @ 3:18PM

Bellowed like the herd animal you are. What about all the damage the abortion, homosexual practice (AIDs,) STDs, etc. other progressivist protected things have wreaked in society? No leftist really cares about the lives destroyed by those because they are bringing about that fun time "fundamental change" to society. Sorry, the same fools that preside over the "legal" murder of millions do not care about the handful that give them a tragedy not to let go to waste.

I never cease to be amazed at the naivete (formal or material) of leftists. Do you think the Germans of the pre-WWI era or the Weimar Republic era could have clearly forseen what was to come? They might have, but I would bet most of them would have just scoffed at it like you do with your "paranoia" statement.

Bill8472| 1.22.13 @ 3:40PM

My answer is HELL YES!

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 6:35PM

My answer is yes. Cars, drugs and alcohol wreak more damage to society than firearms.

Riff Raff| 1.22.13 @ 6:41PM

Well Mr. Jack, your assumtion about my answer is sure self-serving. Typical of your posts. I am not paranoid. I am aware of reality and history. Guns do not wreak havoc on society. This is an absurd claim that requires no refutation. PEOPLE wreak havoc on society, people like YOU who disarm victims and release criminals. People like politicians who blame inanimate objects and law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals, all the while insuring that many criminals are not removed from society. Your assumtions are false, your conclusions are ludicrous, and your moral posturing is phony.

Stan Redmond| 1.22.13 @ 8:28PM

The question for you is whether your paranoia about guns is worth the damage that government control wreaks on society? I take it your answer is yes.

Riff Raff| 1.22.13 @ 8:41PM

"Paranoia about government." Interesting. Government has a long, documented history of violence, war, and genocide. You think that everyone who owns guns is a real or potential mass murderer. And you call ME "paranoid?!" You are seriously demented, Mr. Jack London.

Frank Drackman| 1.22.13 @ 12:50PM

MLK jr was killed with ONE shot from a "Hunting" Rifle.
WHY DO PEOPLE NEED THESE KILLING WEAPONS THAT CAN BLOW SOMEONES HEAD OFF WITH ONE SHOT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Next will be bows/arrows, all the way to friggin BB guns(you'll put your eye out!)

Frank

Stan Redmond| 1.22.13 @ 8:25PM

And that old piece of surplus junk Lee Harvey Oswald used to kill Kennedy. Or those bags of fertilizer and diesel fuel McVeigh used. BAN EM ALL. Ban everything.

Better yet. Ban death. Think of the lives we'd save.

Hardcard| 1.22.13 @ 1:34PM

soros

Kervinlee| 1.22.13 @ 1:42PM

Wouldn't it be great to get some pistol shooting instruction from Dr. Sowell? A dream come true.

Pecos Pete| 1.22.13 @ 1:56PM

Dr. Sowell: Semper Fi!

WhiteBikerTrash| 1.22.13 @ 2:24PM

Imagine, if after Cain had killed Abel, Adam had pushed for Ass Jawbone control then a total ban on all Ass Jawbones. We wouldn't have Democrats or a Senate today!

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 3:08PM

Hey guys - I see there's someone just been exercising his 2nd amendment rights at a Houston campus. Maybe he got a bad grade.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 3:11PM

Here's a story to make you warm inside. If only it was a water gun.

A 14-year-old fatally shot his 15-year-old brother early Saturday morning, according to police.

Henry County police officers were called to the brothers' residence on Deer Trace Drive in McDonough at about 2:41 a.m.

A friend of the brothers was spending the night. The teens somehow got their hands on a handgun in the home.

The gun was unloaded, but sometime during the evening one of the teens loaded the handgun, according to the Henry County Police Department. At some point, the 14-year-old reportedly pointed the gun at his 15-year-old brother and pulled the trigger. The bullet hit the older brother in the chest, killing the teen, according to police.

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/stor.....rs-kills-1

Bill8472| 1.22.13 @ 3:37PM

If only the kid had some knowledge of the NRA's rules for firearms safety.

Jack London| 1.22.13 @ 3:13PM

I wonder in which country this took place only the other day?

CLEVELAND, Ohio - The Cleveland Police Homicide Unit is currently investigating the death of a 6-year-old girl Saturday.
Police said the incident happened around 1:45pm when officers responded to the 4100 block of East 116th street for a child shot.
Officers, along with EMS located the young girl with severe trauma to her head and transported her to Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital where she later died from her injuries.
The preliminary investigation reveals that the girl may have suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound to the face.
Officers are still on scene and investigating and no arrests have been made at this time.

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/ne.....z2IjlaPeWL

Bill8472| 1.22.13 @ 3:38PM

Another case of a person not being familiar enough with firearms to know the NRA rules for safe handling of them.

I wonder if the NRA is a big bugaboo in her household.

Stan Redmond| 1.22.13 @ 8:24PM

There are kids killed everyday in accidents. While all tragic why is it only gun deaths that are "important" to you liberals?

dominic1955| 1.22.13 @ 3:20PM

Both are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Get it through your thick skull.

Drunken Sailor| 1.22.13 @ 4:39PM

Give it up Dominic, Jack is all about emotional turmoil, not facts. He really doesn't care that all those cases he spouts are due to poor knowledge of firearm safety that could have been easily rectified by NRA courses. He just wants all firearems outlawed because they scare him and somehow think passing that law will make all the existing guns dissapear.

He only wants to support the amendments he agrees with. Just another loud liberal like his namesake.

dominic1955| 1.22.13 @ 4:58PM

You're absolutely right, of course. I just wonder what is with people who cannot follow through with a simple though, consider emoting and thinking to be the same thing and on top of this have the hubris to consider themselves somehow intellectually superior?

I think someone got way too many "participant" ribbons as a child...

ebonystone| 1.22.13 @ 3:32PM

In regard to guns and homicides:
In Switserland, virtually every adult male is a member of the army, and has a military-grade firearm and ammunition in his home. Yet Switzerland has one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe: 0.7 per 100,000.

Bill8472| 1.22.13 @ 3:35PM

Did you teach Weaver stance or isosceles?

Or some other stance? Hopefully you weren't instructing in the era of one-handed pistol shooting.

I bet you still make a distinction between a pistol and a revolver.

Robert Nowall | 1.22.13 @ 5:35PM

The studies on crime and gun violence all add up to the same thing...yet the debate, and the positions taken, also remain constant. So there must be some *other* reason for trying to ban guns.

How about this: certain elements want to take guns out of the hands of the people because they're afraid someday the people will give them the bullets.

Thom| 1.22.13 @ 6:55PM

Yep and if the mindset of the "Jack Londons" of world would have prevailed in the 1770s we would still be a British Colony and subjects to the Crown. Likewise where his mindset has ruled for any length of time in Europe, someone else’s sons have had to come free them from their delusions. It isn’t just the “means” you take away with disarmament of citizens; you also take away the skill and mindset that goes along with that. The NRA came about because of the dismal performance of the average Union soldier. No amount of money and training under war time conditions could overcome the deficit the Union soldiers had vs. the Confederate ones. The Framers of the Constitution/Bill of Rights drafted the 2nd Amendment for one and only one reason and they had nutcases, massacres then too. Transplant our violent prone ethnic population to jolly of England and within a year the violent crime wave will shock even “Jack”.

Riff Raff| 1.22.13 @ 8:49PM

Politicians have little or no fear of crime and criminals. They have full time, professionally trained, and ARMED, bodyguards. But we do not and need to protect and defend ourselves. So, what do politicians fear so much that they would seek to disarm the People? There is only one answer.

spike59| 1.24.13 @ 2:56PM

Gun control is never about guns; it's always about control; 'progress'ives are deathly afraid that somewhere, somehow, someone is making a decision without being instructed by the Collective and it drives the BATTY

More Articles by Thomas Sowell

More Articles From The Public Policy

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

May 17, 2013 | Peter Hannaford

After Obamacare

May 16, 2013 | Matt Purple

Words That Replace Thought

May 7, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

Wastrel Government

May 6, 2013 | Gary Shapiro

The New Paternalism

May 3, 2013 | Matt Purple

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/22/do-gun-control-laws-control-gu

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|135 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

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.