-
Snowden’s Online Q&A Leaves Many un-Aed Qs
June 17, 2013 | 2 comments
-
NSA Director Clarifies Data-Mining Programs — To An Extent
June 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Why NSA Leaker Edward Snowden Came Forward
June 10, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Greenwald Promised More Bombshells Before Revealing Source
June 10, 2013 | 3 comments
-
CORRECTED: “Boundless Informant” NSA Program Revealed
June 8, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
A lot of numbers are thrown around — and ignored — in the debate over gun regulation. Are mass shootings on the rise? Is the United States the most violent nation in the developed world? Is a proliferation of assault rifles fueling a new era of massacres and mayhem? So it would seem, based on the rhetoric of folks like Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). A crux of the current debate is whether to ban so-called assault weapons. Rifles such as the AR-15, a semi-automatic first cousin of the M-16, are Public Enemy Number One.
What do the official FBI crime statistics say? 3.76%. That is the proportion of 2011 firearm homicides in which a rifle was documented as the weapon. Compare that to 4.15% for shotguns and 72.47% for handguns. (Rifles were implicated in 2.55% of all murders.) An important qualification should be made: 19.62% of cases involved “Other guns or type not stated.” I am also taking for granted that the FBI database is reliable. That being said, handguns were documented more than 19 times as frequently as rifles. Some of the miscellaneous cases were undocumented, but the balance defies standard categorization. It may even be that more guns were documented in a miscellaneous category than as rifles, though this is admittedly conjecture.
Even if all of the rifles were assault weapons — a dubious assumption given assurances that an assault weapons ban would not affect the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners — it would seem that gun control advocates are off target in their focus. The truth is that an assault weapons ban would diminish the liberty of law abiding-citizens, but its impact on gun homicides would be minimal. General gun statistics are most representative of handguns, which are far more common — and relatively difficult to demonize.
Gun regulation is a complicated issue. The United States does have a high rate of gun deaths compared to other developed nations. It was also born of a gun culture, forged by a revolution of citizen militias defending their property against a distant tyrant. The ethical, legal, and practical aspects of the debate are uniquely complex. The stakes are high, and emotions run deep, liberty on one side, security on the other. With this in mind, it is important that the discussion be conducted factually and respectfully.
Demagoguing a minor aspect of a larger problem will not solve it. Homicides are not even a leading cause of death in the United States, but suicides ranked tenth in 2011, and were more than twice as prevalent. Yet Congress remains preoccupied by the merits of regulating bayonets and flash suppressors.
View all comments (6) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Luca Gattoni-Celli
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/03/04/setting-the-record-straight-on
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
mike 3/505| 3.4.13 @ 1:47PM
The ethical, legal, and practical aspects of the debate are uniquely complex. The stakes are high, and emotions run deep, liberty on one side, security on the other. With this in mind, it is important that the discussion be conducted factually and respectfully.
Two errors for the price of one. The gun issue is in no way complex. It is quite simple and clear...shall not be infringed...There is nothing more to say.
As to folks who wish to limit one of my fundamental rights, there is no need to hold a respectful discussion with them. Their very desire to disarm me and my family is a deliberate act. Such acts, put me and my family in danger. I don't hold respectful discussions with folks who through their actions bring harm to me and my family.
Butch| 3.4.13 @ 2:17PM
Beg to differ with "liberty on one side, security on the other." I live in a city with a large minority population that is getting friskier and friskier, even in upscale-neighborhood shopping center parking lots in the broad daylight--it's crack addiction. I believe the only thing that keeps these people from invading homes wholesale is the possibility that the owners may possess weapons. They are already invading the homes of older women living alone, when they know they are there. The cops are zero security; you and your neighbors are all there is.
Stan Redmond| 3.4.13 @ 6:55PM
Don't worry. After they ban dreaded assault rifles new definitions will be created to ban the dreaded assault handguns next. Then when someone kills with a revolver a new definition of assault revolvers will be created and banned. Oh yeah. For some real good news look at the new head of the EPA. Why ban guns when we can ban lead and those other harmful chemicals in gun powder and primer caps? California almost got away with it.
Bob K| 3.4.13 @ 8:17PM
"Gun regulation is a complicated issue." And this is the crux of Mr. Gattoni-Celli's entire article here!
Why are we Conservatives required to read something like this on every controversial issue that comes up? It is difficult to tell if the writer here is patronizing his readers or if he is throwing a bone to potential critics of his article. Is this pusillanimous phrasing required of all new Interns at work in Journals of Conservative Opinion? I wonder if Interns working in Journals of Liberal Opinion have to delicately prance around the main subject of their articles this way?
All governmental regulations are "complicated" issues and rife with unintended consequences!
And they tend to get really complicated when they are promulgated to obfuscate the clear meaning of one of the rights granted to Americans by the Constitution.
There is very little to argue about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and it's purpose and when we see phrases like "complicated issue" when it is discussed we know the writer is blowing smoke!
If a writer wants to be a Eunuch he can get a job as a bureaucrat and write regulations. If he wants to defend America's freedoms as a Journalist then he should write as if he believes in them.
wombat1| 3.4.13 @ 8:44PM
Unfortunately, Mr. Gattoni-Celli misses the essential point.
There is no such thing as "setting the record straight" when you are up against people who are not dealing in good faith. The so-called "progressives" are True Believers as hard-core as any Nazi or Communist. What ever serves the Cause is true and good; whatever does not is false and evil. And the facts be damned.
Mike Daly | 3.5.13 @ 11:07AM
There's nothing complex about gun control. It simply doesn't work. Stop enforcing it. Stop treating Feinstein et al like they're dealing in good faith - they are liars and need to be treated as such.