What Do Flat Earthers and Gun Control Advocates Have in Common?
They say there are still people who believe the earth is flat. Despite all the evidence, despite the logic of the earth being a sphere, despite the pictures from space, despite the fact you can fly over the poles — there are some people who still cling to their silly, completely disproved notion of a flat earth. It’s like for some completely unfathomable reason they made the choice to be stupid and will not be moved from that position. It seemed like an urban legend to me — that there were some people out there perhaps pretending to believe in a flat earth, only as a gag — until I saw there were some people with just as stupid and illogical beliefs who I know aren’t part of a hoax: the few people left in the U.S. who still support increasing gun control.
Yes, they are a dwindling few and have been for some time, but they are still out there, and it’s completely inexplicable. And we’re not just talking weirdos on some obscure board on the internet; these are actual public officeholders working on laws. And they are completely unmovable by even the most basic logic and facts.
When states first started passing right-to-carry laws, the gun control people warned of a return to the Wild West where people would shoot each other at the drop of the hat and criminals would become more violent in retaliation. Now, decades later, there are shall-issue laws in at least forty states, where anyone who is not a felon can carry a handgun. Crime has gone down. None of the gun control proponents’ wild-eyed fantasies have come true. The rare outbreak of random violence — the shooting spree — happens almost exclusively in “gun-free” zones. So what are the arguments of pro-gun control people now when there is a proposal to relax gun laws? They use the exact same arguments they used twenty-five years ago as if nothing has changed!
Just look at the cavemen in Chicago panicking that thundersticks are now legal for honest citizens to own. They’re freaking out that now there will be unspeakable violence in their streets. Worse than they have already made things with their gun prohibition laws? Is that even possible? It’s as if they think they are the first city ever in which handguns have been made legal.
Again, decades of data of people being able to carry guns don’t even inform them in the slightest. Facts bounce off their thick heads like pebbles off a tank. If there was even a modicum of truth to their insane, illogical beliefs on gun ownership, wouldn’t they have numerous examples of violent outbreaks to point to in all the states that allow people to carry concealed handguns? But none exist, because all those fantasies were cooked up by morons who don’t understand human behavior or liberty. Most have realized this by now, but there are a few holdouts still clamping their hands over their ears trying to block out reality and reason. I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but being for gun control has gone from a legitimate political viewpoint to mental illness.
You are missing the point. Mayor Daley is as much a criminal as Jack the Ripper and he knows it. No criminal likes to have the victims armed. Now that makes more sense doesn’t it?
A humorous, well written and logical argument against the shrill, fear-mongering anti-gun zealots. That must make you a racist. Or something.
Why let reality infringe on an opinion or feelings? I think more States will get “shall issue” laws, but it will be a very long tome before reality reaches places like California and Massachusetts.
One or two more Supreme Court appointments like the last couple and the country could be near revolution over the Second Amendment.
Mass., maybe, but Ca. will shortly become a horrible example of the saying
that ‘A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged by reality.’
After a certain number of nitwits have earned their Darwin Award,
the survivors will arm themselves.
Up here in the cow counties of North California, it is possible to get a CCW permit. I’ve had one for years. Not all of us are hoplophobic fools. Back in high school, we would go hunt dove or pheasant before class and park our trucks in the school parking lot with shotguns in the back window. No one thought a thing about it. Now we’d be on a 24/7 rotation on CNN for a month with a additional 6 weeks of Nancy Grace….. What the hell happened? Never mind, I know…
I had pretty much the same experience as a teenager in the late 1960′s living in the suburbs of Indianapolis. I had a bb gun, 22 cal pellet gun and a semi-auto 22 rifle. Most of my friends did too. It was not unsuual to see us walking down the street in our subdivision carrying our guns on our way to the woods. If that were to happen today, someone would call 911. Times have sure changed.
I lived in San Diego from 1976-1988, long enough to see LA start south.
The surprising thing was that an hours drive to the _East_ the country
reminded me of Texas; Hope it has not been overrun by now.
CA is a discretionary state which means that the issuance of CCWs is left to the local sheriff/local PD. In some counties the sheriff only issues them to his political supporters- that is contributors. Others issue to no one. Others (mostly NorCal counties) issue to anyone.
The lack of standards is the basis of a lawsuit currently wending it’s way through the court system here. I think it was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.
Thank you for the spot of humor, Mr. Flemming.
As far as MA goes, it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be. I have a CCW, but it is currently a discretionary issue, up to the local Chief. My chief actually broke the law by sitting on the application long after he was legally obligated to respond. One call to my state Sen and I had it in the mailbox 3 days later.
MA is going to move to a central issuing authority, so it should be less of a hodge-podge and be more responsive.
Also, to my surprise, MA is a ‘castle doctrine’ state! Whooda’ thunk!
Of course, that’s not to say that I’m not itching to get out of here!
The country’s first major anti-gun law might have been the Sullivan Act. It was written by Timothy Sullivan who was basically a gangster who became a New York state senator. The motivation was to disarm his opponents — criminal and political.
The Earth is indeed flat. Flatness is the overwhelming characteristic of the Earth as we Earth-bound humans experience it 24-7-365, year after year. It is more a mark of insanity to feign an intellectualism built on falsehoods and slanders of common sense. The common sense is that the world is flat. That flatness is the BEST working model of the Earth in everyday life. That’s why we carry maps, and FLAT-screen GPS units rather than globes to direct us through traffic and trips by surface transport. Even airplane pilots, unconstrained by the bounds of surface life, still use FLAT maps to plot their routes.
To claim that those who view the Earth as flat are somehow rubes and ignorant, stone-age, dark-age, anti-science imbeciles is plain and simple itself a denial of reality. It is insanity.
Bravo! I greatly enjoyed the belly laugh your post gave me. Kudos!
Nice try, but you didn’t go far enough into loonyland to be believable.
You have to be correct, if the earth wasn’t flat then how would a carpenters level work?
Ever wonder why, in the Matrix, it was the BLUE pill that let one remain in his dream state, and the RED pill that awakened one to the truth?
The delusion isn’t just about gun control. It is of course, an entire leftist worldview that makes the state the supreme savior of the people. As long as leftists are the ruling class, we must remain forever vigilant. Sadly, it is not irrelevant yet.
Damn…of all the symbolism in that movie, I missed that one!
you can’t ignore them. there are efforts in the u.n. to do what the american courts won’t. the anti gun nuts have been and are trying to get the “small arms treaty” passed as a way to “overrule” american sovereignty. that way the courts can affirm the constitution all they want,but congress can join the treaty as a signer and then take your gun by citing international law. so don’t ignore them, oppose them tooth and nail.
Frank, remember the words of Chicago’s own Saul Bellow:
“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”
In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Burger answered that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ‘state armies’—’the militia’—would be maintained for the defense of the state.”
– Quoted by Cass Sunstein
Only someone with no knowledge of the english language could come to the conclusion that the only purpose of the 2nd ammd was to allow states to form militias.
If the position that the 2nd ammd allows individuals is a fraud, it is a fraud instigated by the majority of the founding fathers. You know, the guys who wrote that constitution thingy. They are unanimous in their personal writtings about how the the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
The clause about the militia explains one of the reasons why the 2nd ammd is necessary, it is not a limiting clause.
How does it possibly make any sense that the Founding Fathers would write 9 amendments to the Constitution that are unarguably individual rights and 1, the second amendment, that would apply only to militias and government bodies? It makes no sense at all.
The Bill of Rights were written specifically to outline the individual rights of every American citizen that could not be overridden by the government, and any judge, Supreme Court or otherwise, who doesn’t realize this is an idiot who needs to turn in their law license because they have no clue how to interpret the law accurately.
Technically speaking, by the guidelines of the Founding Fathers, every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 46 (if I remember correctly) was considered to be a member of the local militia, which was why every citizen was encouraged to own firearms. They did not need to be enlisted in an organized military unit, but be available if called upon in the defense of their nation.
This is why I am starting my own militia with all my daughters and friends at work to obtain a carry permit and also buy more guns and ammunition. My kids all have their own families to protect and I want those that I trust at work to help keep a peaceful workplace. Armed citizens can do that and the police can only fill out reports for those unarmed and untrained citizens!
Frank writes: “If there was even a modicum of truth to their insane, illogical beliefs on gun ownership, wouldn’t they have numerous examples of violent outbreaks to point to in all the states that allow people to carry concealed handguns? But none exist, because all those fantasies were cooked up by morons who don’t understand human behavior or liberty. Most have realized this by now, but there are a few holdouts still clamping their hands over their ears trying to block out reality and reason. I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but being for gun control has gone from a legitimate political viewpoint to mental illness.”
“Speak of the Devil and he appears.” Right on time Heeeerrresss Joey.
History clearly shows that we ignore such people at our peril.
They infiltrate, insinuate, indoctrinate. They suborn the press, the professions, education. They never give up and they never go away.
They wait for their chance and move ruthlessly.
The restoration of gun rights was and is a long, damn hard fight. It would not have happened if the opposition had been underestimated.
Remember: they’re not just after your guns- they’re after every last one of your rights and liberties.
The problem is that you believe gun control advocates at face value concerning their reasons for wanting gun control in the first place.
All you have to do is 1). Look to history to see the true purpose of ANY gun control. 2). Look at the facts surrounding the Right to bear arms, self protection, defense against tyranny and individual Rights as they come from God and the effect on criminal behavior. 3). Look at and read the Constitution.
Contrary to the present administration and the Marxist left, words do in fact have meaning. And they retain their meaning even after many decades. But you wouldn’t know it when you consider the rhetoric they spewed surrounding the legislation they have spawned over the last 18 months.
You can’t believe anyone that denies the truth, facts and common sense. And I don’t mean ‘relative’ truth, either.
Just shows that idiotic ideas can live in the Supreme Court Joseph. The intent was very obvious in the writings of the architects of the Bill of Rights that this section of the Constitution was to protect the people from tyranny by their own government.
Russia has very strict gun control laws (stricter than NY and MA), and yet it has a murder rate over three times as high as the US. Criminals will always find a way to get the tools they need to commit crimes. Liberals are just too afraid to confront evil, so they try to regulate it out of existence. Banning guns will not put an end to violent crime any more than banning drugs has put an end to drug abuse.
And Burger was a liar. And he was wrong. Mothing in the writings of those wrote the Bill of Rights wrote what Burger alleges is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. His arguement is leftist anti-gun propaganda, built on a lie.
The same is true of Warren Burger’s inexplicable arguments in favor of abortion being a constitutional right. They were entirely illogical.
1)My next door teenage neighbor was shot and killed in a gas station hold up.
2)My son’s ex-prom date accidentally killed herself with a gun.
3)The facilities manager of a museum I worked at shot and killed his wife before turning the gun on himself. He was a decorated marine combat veteran.
4)My daughter’s friend accidentally killed herself with a gun.
5) The son of a former co-worker, a new father of two weeks, was shot and killed over some argument at a gas station. He was unarmed.
6)The gifted son of one of wife’s co-workers, Martinez was his name, was shot and killed by someone jealous of his wrestling ability. He was going to represent the US in the Olympics.
7)My daughter worked the crisis hotline at Virginia Tech the evening of the massacre. Fortunately she was not near the shooting.
FBI statistics indicate homicides, suicides and accidental deaths outnumber self-defense deaths 49 to 1.
Of course the gun-control advocates are the crazy ones.
And I could post horrible stories about car accidents and demand cars be made illegal for the general public. Or kids drowning in swimming pools.
Over 40 states have right to carry and crime has gone down. That’s a fact… but yes you can still keep looking at the horizon and pointing how flat the earth looks.
Nice attempt to lie with statistics. Do you spend most of your life living in fear of inanimate objects.
The first evidence that you are lying is that you want to focus only on self-defense deaths. The vast majority of time when a gun is used in self defense, it isn’t even fired. Of the times that it is fired, the vast majority of the time, the perp doesn’t die.
The second piece of evidence that you are lying, is that you imply that if it weren’t for guns, there would be no accidental deaths, there would be no suicides, and nobody would ever be killed by a gun in a robbery.
Yes, it is the anti-gun crowd that is crazy, because they insist on believing things that are easily disproven.
In your case, given the outlandishly improbable impact of murderous handgun use in your family and among your co-workers and acquaintances, I think local gun control might work.
Perhaps packing the family, surviving co-workers, and acquaintances in the station wagon – can’t be many left at this point so they should all fit – and trundling off to a remote site might be the short term answer. You’d be the only locals there, and so local gun control should work as long as you carefully pat down the co-workers and acquaintances before leaving home, after any rest stops on the way, after you arrive, and anytime they return to camp from the trading post. Course the bears will probably eat most of your posse, but that ain’t like being shot.
Interesting. The common element in all of your anecdotes is YOU. Where were you when those people died?
And out of curiosity, how many of these people in the instances you cite (without documentation I may add) were licensed and trained gun owners?
How many of them, if there were licensed, trained, and armed, might still be alive today? Your gas station attendant, the arguement at the gas station (same place, perhaps?) and the victims of Virginia Tech come to mind.
The girl who accidentally shot and killed herself… Was she ever trained in firearm safety? Did she have a license?
And without any supporting documentation (news links, local reports) you could have made up every single one of those instances, with the exception of Virginia Tech, just to prop up your failed point.
Your arguement rings empty.
You seem to put a curse on anyone around you. Your children both know someone who accidently shot themselves and died? The rate of accidental deaths by firearms is similar to that of bicycle accidents. For under 17 in VA it is usually 0-4 incidents per year. Yet your children have personal relationships with 2 of them, not to mention a teenage neighbor who was murdered? Maybe you should move, since it looks like all the shootings in VA are centered around you and your house.
1) Your neighbor died as a result of not being armed.
2) “Accident – so blame the gun.”
3) Domestic murder/suicide, independent of the means of killing.
4) “Accident – so blame the gun.”
5) Why was the son of the former co-worker unarmed?
6) Why wasn’t the wrestler armed?
7) How many do you think would have died had some of the other students been armed?
The shooters (killas) at the gas stations very likely had priors where, had an armed citizen been present, might have ended their criminal careers such that others wouldn’t have become victims later. The accidental deaths are unfortunate and, as someone above mentioned, been prevented by training with weapons. You’ll never be convinced of the usefulness of guns as tools in the lives of everyday people so I won’t even try. But what you might consider are the lives that have been lost to violent criminals who have relied upon the unarmed nature of their victims to act, when they might not have otherwise.
An enterprising lawyer might want to file a class-action suit against each and every state or locale that places “infringements” on the securing of guns where deaths or serious injuries could have been prevented, had the victim been armed. If these “infringements” aren’t acts of aiding and abetting criminals, I don’t what are.
You and yours must be the most unfortunate people in America. The only people I know of who have anything close to your story are drug dealers and gang members and their families.
I live where any non felon may carry a gun and I grew up around guns. The only people I know personally that were killed by guns were police officers killed by known felons who were already breaking the law.
Sorry, Bob. All those data prove is that law-abiding gun owners are too responsible to shoot at whim. But you know, murder rates rise in the summer, when air conditioner usage also peaks. Maybe if we banned air conditioners…
One of the core tenets of liberalism is that people who do not work for the govt cannot be trusted to run their own lives.
Whether it is choosing your own doctor, or when and how to protect your own life. Hoi Poloi cannot be trusted with such decisions, these decisions must be made for us by our social betters.
Mr. Fleming may be right. The Gun Control battle is over and I am not one to tilt at windmills.
The United States has brought to the world many excellent things which have been copied in many countries. Among the things invented or at least popularised by America include the Presidential and Federal government, jazz and blues music, basketball and baseball. I’m sure that in a minute Pajamas Media readers could produce a substantial list.
Yet two things have convinced absolutely no one, anywhere, any time. They are two things that Americans tie themselves in logical and emotional knots to convince an unwilling world of their attraction: American Football and the right to bear firearms, indeed any arms. In trying to sell these basically unattractive products one often hears arguments as developed by Mr. Fleming that opponents, who include just about every country in the world other than America are insane.
The reasoning for pushing the right to bear arms rather than the privilege of bearing arms under circumstances of demonstrated need is specious. If the same reasoning was introduced in any statistics class for any other issue the student wouldbe awarded a resounding ‘F’.
The question is not whether crime rates have altered with Gun Control, always debateable as most crimes are not reported but whether crime involving firearms has altered. A second but entirely reasonable question is where the guns in controlled states and cities have originated. The answer as sure as the earth is a sphere is from somewhere where the guns are not controlled. This is a disadvantage of the federal system. America which strictly controls firearm imports from outside its borders has no such internal controls. The firearm that kills in one state could have and probably was legally acquired in another state and changed hands several times before being used in a crime.
There is one statistic that seems never to be brought up in these discussions.
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population in one year (1998 figures)
England and Wales 0.38
Japan 0.07
Netherlands 0.70
Greece 1.50
Australia 2.94
Norway 4.39
Canada 4.78
You all know where this is going:
United States of America 15.22
When US gun crime figures drop to the rate of countries with strict gun control and concealed weapons bans then you may be able to convince the rest of the world that the right to carry is a blessing not a burden. American Football?.
There’s also this thing called freedom some countries care about. But maybe if we take away freedom we can magically get the murder rates of other countries. Maybe if we disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals will disarm too!
Or maybe that’s another example of the moronic thinking of gun control proponents.
Another nut who knows how to misuse statistics.
As anyone with any knowledge of statistics knows, before you can compare any two groups of people, you must first show that you have controlled for all variables, otherwise just pulling up one statistic is meaningless.
First off, have you controlled for the demographic differences between the US and other countries?
Have you controlled for the economic differences between the US and other countries.
Have you controlled for the cultural differences between the US and other countries.
No, it’s just easier to compare one meaningless statistic and then go around telling yourself how incredibly profound you are and that anyone who doesn’t faint at your brilliance is just to stupid to bother with anyway.
Do you want to do any studies regarding how violent crime in Britain, including gun crimes, sky rocketed after Britain banned guns.
Do you want to do any studies on countries that have murder rates 3, 4, even 5 times higher than the US, but have also banned guns?
Do you want to do any studies on those countries that have lower murder rates, but have much easier access to guns than is the case in the US?
No, you want to cherry pick “facts” that support your case and ignore everything that doesn’t.
You do an excellent job of proving the author’s point, gun banners are impervious to fact and reason.
I swear I thought I just saw a Windmill being tilted at – surrounded by an army of straw men…
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Aren’t Great Britain, Australia, Canada places where gun ownership is highly restricted? …. WHERE do the guns come from to produce those firearms deaths ?
And, what about attacks and deaths with knives, clubs, brass knuckles? All three countries above have really dangerous places….
John Lott wrote the book, “More Guns, Less Crime” … loaded with statistics and updated 3 times since originally written. … States generally require safety training for gun permits.
In addition to the above comments, you also failed to address the differences in gun control laws in the various states. If you were to compare the rest of the world with U.S. states that have little or no gun control, you would find a really low number of gun deaths. If you look at strictly gun control states (MA, CA, IL, PA, MI etc) you would find gun deaths much higher than the statistic you spout as evidence of the virtues of gun control.
Probably the U.S. statistic is due to the fact that a criminal (in their warped thinking) believes it is better to not leave a witness alive for fear of the penalties of a crime. Also criminals Do Not Obey Laws this is why we call them criminals! “When guns are outlawed then only outlaws will possess and use firearms (guns)”. I remain alive and well today because I have and can use a firearm and have only in one circumstance had to even reveal that fact to a potential bad situation (for me) that merely let a bad guy know he might be blown away if I so choose to do so! Self defense with a firearm is a huge responsibility, but it is better to be judged by 12 than carried to the grave by six!
Sir: Your cowardly half-way measures are not enough! Like all liberals, you fail to go far enough!!
What is freedom of the press if it protects “blow ‘em away” movies and inspires violence? And since the exclusionary rule only allows criminals to go free because a cop has blundered, lets get rid of it too, so true justice can be done! No other country has the exlusionary rule anyway!
I have many more proposals!. Rotating college professors, reporters, peace activists and historicaly ignorant posters to the poorer areas of our cities from which all guns have been removed is one: true the big, lumbering drunks, muggers, and other mean types will still be there–but not to worry! None of those people would ever think of using physical force, a knife or pipe. No need to worry one will break into your brownstone to attack your family!
Plus you need to win converts from thsi collection of gun nuts! Put your name/address and the fact that you have no gun on your door! Stand proud!
Perhaps if we controlled our borders better, as do the other nations mentioned by DEEGREE, and gave stiffer sentences to illegal gun carriers, i.e., felons, we would have better statistics. I am in favor of both options.
I refuse to do your research for you be here is on piece of information for you to digest. You can narrow your focus on statics that already fit your preconceived notions or you can keep an open mind. The choice is yours. Your data is much more complex that what you present. Fact Countries with more gun control do not have less crime Japan is an exception and that is a culture issue.
Check Australia, England & Wales, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Northland Ireland, France, Sweden to name a few.
TOKYO, Jan. 26 (AP) – (Kyodo)—The number of suicides in Japan increased again in 2009, staying above 30,000 for the 12th straight year, the National Police Agency said Tuesday in a preliminary report.
Ah, another cherry picker. After instituting draconian gun bans, violent crime increased in both the UK and Australia. As of 2006, my research found that women were raped in Australia three times as often as American women; UK women were raped twice as often. Robbery and assaults increased as well, but rape led the way. You know, those people who are less physically able to defend themselves against violent male felons.
So DG, you keep supporting rapists and keep posting your comments. It’s nice to know who one’s enemies are, and what rhetoric they are using to justify domestic terrorism.
O.K.so I’m a little late here but where did you pull that stat.up from?VPA?
(United States of America 15.22).
Does that include suicides,police shootings,gang shootings,self defense?I assume you are Englander; it is not on list below, must not be safe huh?
TEN SAFEST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER (LATE-1990s)
COUNTRY
PER MILLION
(1) Slovenia 0.7
(2) Austria 0.9
(3) Sweden 1.8
(4) Switzerland 2.3
(5) Israel 2.3
(6) Hong Kong 2.4
(7) Norway 2.5
(8) Ireland 2.8
(9) Finland 3.7
(10) Singapore 4.3
“Now, decades later, there are shall-issue laws in at least forty states, where anyone who is not a felon can carry a handgun. Crime has gone down. None of the gun control proponents’ wild-eyed fantasies have come true.”
Yes, it’s pretty certain that shall-issue laws don’t create crime. That concealed-carry laws actually decrease crime is far less certain. Some studies have found a large decrease. Some have have no change and a few have found a slight but insignificant increase in crime.
There’s also this thing called freedom some countries care about. But maybe if we take away freedom we can magically get the murder rates of other countries.
I knew a person in another debate forum. His mother was killed in an automobile accident.
This person traveled everywhere either by foot or on a bicycle, he spent just about every waking moment writting letters to editors and politicians, doing everything he knew how to do, to get automobiles banned.
In another life, this guy could be Bob from Virginia.
Is that the same Chief Justice Warren E. Burger who, in 1974,
answered a late-night knock on his door with pistol in hand ?
Smart and witty.
Hoplophobia is a serious mental disorder. It is the irrational fear of inanimate objects used as weapons. This being the case, would the irrational fear of others possessing weapons be called hoplophobia by proxy??????
First off, let me say I agree fully with Mr. Fleming. I look forward to the day when all 50 states and the District of Columbia will have shall issue laws on the books. Turning now to two of the outliers here (deegee @17, and Bob from Virginia):
deegee @17 – I do not know where you picked up the number 15 per hundred thousand: the homicide rate in the US from firearms, as of 2008, is approximately 3.4; if one includes suicides, then it is about 7. (The homicide data are from the 2008 UCR, the population data are for 2008 from the 2010 US Statistical Abstract and the suicide number is based on my last look at those data which had about 18,000 gun-related suicides to 15,000 homicides – and btw, most gun-related suicides are with much easier to obtain long guns than pistols). I would, however exclude suicides because many other countries with strict gun control laws have much higher suicide rates than the US. (There are many more ways to kill one’s self than with a gun.) Secondly, your data for the other countries is quite stale, and particularly so for the UK. The UK essentially banned guns in 1996. Since then its violent crime rates have zoomed up to about five times where they were in 1996 (while US violent crime rates have declined). Also, while the UK continues to have lower homicide rates than the US, its homicide rates have also increased since 1996 (while US rates have declined). Finally, in comparing homicide rates across regions, one has to account for demographics. Unfortunately, homicide rates among African-Americans in the US is quite high (accounting for more than half the homicides in the entire US). Also, a young demographic profile will yield a higher homicide rate, and on that score alone, we should have a higher homicide rate than other European type countries with their much, much older populations. (Finally, I note, both Switzerland and Israel have extensive private ownership of guns but miniscule homicide rates.)
Turning to Bob from Virginia, I find it hard to believe that you have witnessed all these homicides. The Virginia homicide rate with a firearm is 3.1 per 100,000 which is below the US rate. You either live in a very bad neighborhood or the people you know have had a very bad run of bad luck. Looking at your data, though, you listed four homicides, 2 accidental deaths and one suicide. One of the homicides would have happened anyway because it was a hold-up. Criminals are not deterred by gun laws, only law-abiding citizens are. For two of the other three homicides you do not provide enough information to know the particulars. Was it a criminal act or was it some dispute between friends? As for the domestic matter (the murder-suicide) it could have been a domestic dispute, and could have been effected by means other than a firearm. As for the accidental deaths, I am quite surprised because accidental deaths due to firearms have become relatively rare. But if you really are afraid of accidental deaths, avoid automobiles at all costs.
What is important is what would life look in Virginia if it was not a shall-issue state. For that you don’t have to go too far. Just look across the river to Maryland (I don’t have DC figures). Maryland is a may issue state (and most of the time it won’t issue). Its homicide rate with firearms is over twice the Virginia rate. Only the bad guys get to carry guns in Maryland.
All in all, the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding, the issue of carrying guns is a cost-benefit analysis at least in terms of self-defense. It has been shown over and over again that concealed carry, while it may not eliminate homicides entirely, appears to do a very good job of lowering homicide rates. I know – correlation is not causation, but it certainly is suggestive. But on the apparent cost-benefit analysis alone, it would seem a wider ownership of firearms among law-abiding citizens would have a very positive effect on lowering US homicide rate below where they are today.
Bob the Virginer read about all these shootings in the library stacks going back to 1798 at the Univ of VA. They are indisputable. Of course when he mentioned his idea for a comment on Journolist, he was told to make the numbers personal for more impact… and to vote Democraticic.
Well damn wish I had read a little further you would have saved me the effort of answering degreeeeeee.
Excellent post.
Again, decades of data of people being able to carry guns don’t even inform them in the slightest. Facts bounce off their thick heads like pebbles off a tank.
The contradiction inherent in that point of view disappears when you ask the question: “What purpose does rendering people helpless and defenseless serve?”
The answer isn’t pleasant to contemplate, as history has so clearly shown. Those who oppose an individual right to self-defense have an agenda.
The areas covered were Chicago (2 murders), DC (1 murder) and the rest from Virginia. I, too, was amazed that so many gun deaths crossed my white middle class path. The years extend from the 1960s to present. All but two occurred in the last ten years. I certainly did not personally witness any of these, I personally knew only three of the victims and the mother of another.
I’ll quote, as best I can, what I hear is a common police observation, people lose their temper, then use a gun, then frantically regret it. Yes, some societies have greater gun ownership and are less prone to violence than the US. That seems a very good argument for gun control in the US since we do have such a society. I had a girlfriend who taught in an inner city junior college in Chicago where almost everyone had a relation who had been killed. That there are a lot variables stands without argument, but because we have so easy an access to firearms and apparently so unstable a population that access to firearms should be much tighter controlled. I can only point to the Virginia Tech shooter as an example. He used a handgun legally obtained a few minutes before the rampage.
As for comparing Maryland and Virginia homicide rates, my guess is that Maryland’s is high because of the presence of Prince George County, which reflects DC rather than the rest of Maryland. Therefore I would not ascribe anything to the gun laws of either state. Likewise the homicide rates in the UK. Who is doing the killing? Single loons with automatic weapons as happened just recently, terrorists, also recent, or Islamic immigrants knocking off their daughters for playing the wrong music? A good study would involve at least a book load of analysis. I see two things unequivocal, many of those guns deaths I referred to above had people been educated against having guns, two the Virginia Tech massacre may have been prevented by better gun control laws.
While I am at it, most of the commenters here, and including Mr. Fleming, illustrate a hysterical personality type that I would not trust with a gun or a car.
Dude, go hang with the KKK and other outdated fascists who want decide who gets to exercise what rights.
We are such an unstable society! If we could ONLY get our act together like the resepctable stable countries, and either start a world war like germany and japan, sit one out and keep the bank accounts until caught like the swiss, sell iron ore to the aggressor like the swedes, roll over like the french, or roll in to other countries like russia, we could be stable and civilized!
You worry me a bit, you know. If the Bill of Rights were proposed today, I bet more than half the country could be persuaded to limit the first, second and fourth amendments. Some people find freedom terribly inconvenient and messy. You obviously do too. Please think about this some more.
2 from Chicago and 1 from DC out of those 7? You do realise that those two cities have until recently had the STRICTEST gun control policies in place. No permits, no carrying by private citizens in DC at all that I know of, and probably difficulty obtaining one for the home -similar for Chicago, as noted in the commentary.
So that leaves two accidents, a psychopath and a murder-suicide. For the accidents, I am very sorry they happened. However, there’s just not enough information. Little kids playing with a gun? Fault of the parents or guardians (or a willful kid). What about while cleaning a gun? That is truly sad, but also her fault, much the same as a person failing to look up at a cross-walk. Same for hunting or firing range accidents outside of actual mechanical failure.
I and many of my friends growing up in the 80s had guns in our houses, some loaded for self-defense, and none of us played with them. All of us learned to shoot (I didn’t hunt, but my friends did), and to be responsible- even when little, we knew which were toys, and which were hands off. None of us had accidents, and that’s a pretty large sample popultion of the people I know (before moving to Washington state, I’d say roughly 80% either owned or had handled guns). In comparison, by the time I was 20, 3 acquaintences died in motorcycle accidents, one severly and permanently brain damaged by a self-inflicted car wreck (I’d call a 5th of JD before driving self-inflicted), and 2 that died by car accidents- one of them was in a wreck where 3 other people died.
Following your logic Bob, I’d not worry about guns, but I’d want to heavily restrict access to motor vehicles, and want to bring the speed limits down to around, what, 40 mph? 35 mph? Maybe lower, since some of those wrecks happened at low speeds.
Let’s not forget the other two – A man so incensed as to kill his spouse and then himself is probably off his rocker enough to use the kitchen knife on her, or just beat her to death- that might have stopped the suicide, but I highly doubt it (knives and rope work well).
For the psychopath- this even happens in heavily controlled areas, like Scotland, for example. What would have had a better chance to prevent that person from becoming a killer was a better mental health system, or more alert people around him.
So in all, I’m really not sure how your 7 tragedies make a case for gun control. Where it was the strictest, people got killed without even the option of self-defense. Where it wasn’t, people got killed by someone mentally unstable or had accidents. The murders could have been checked possibly by the victim being armed. The accidents- education and awareness. The mentally unstable? I’d bet in both cases there were a lot of signs that people willfully ignored.
The only way for gun control to have stopped all of the cases you brought up is an outright public ban and confiscation off all firearms. Well, stopped the gun use anyway…knives would be a popular, and effective alternative (as can apparently be seen in Britain these days), and you can always beat the daylights out of someone to rob them. And talk about a hell of a time for the police and probably national guard (if not army) to root out the gangs and criminals that have them stashed, since well, it’s not likely the bloods and crypts, not to mention any of the latino, russian, asian or white skinheads (and punk middle class white wannabe thugs) are going to give up their weapons. You’d also have to have mass arrests of otherwise innocent men and women.
I won’t even get into the people living on the southern border in drug/human trafficing regions…I can’t even imagine the joyful celebrations of the gangs in areas like Juarez at knowing the citizens of their northern border had been disarmed…
On the whole, I’ll take responsible ownership.
Please stop using the Virginia Tech massacre as an argument for gun control. The fact is that there were no less than five people who encountered Cho during that rampage who had conceal-carry permits. Four of them have testified that, if it were not for the gun-free campus rule, they would have been routinely carrying on campus. Cho would have been taken out early in his spree.
As far as I’m concerned, at least two dozen people, including a friend of mine, were sacrificed that day to the idiotic god of the utopians. Call me “hysterical” if you like, but it makes me sick.
Bob, unless they’ve changed their methodology in the last couple of years, the British do not include acts of terrorism in their crime statistics. Habit they developed due to the IRA, they decided to seperatate terrorism from economic crime. Even then, the Brits have a much higher rate of violent crime than the US, far more assaults on their police officers etc.
Problem with the statistics you used earlier in that various countries do not us the same methodologies in figuring their suicide/homicide rates and firearm crimes. But again, I don’t think you’re too concerned since, as was pointed out earlier you cherry-picked countries supporting your case vice looking at those which contradict it and trying to find out the real truth of what’s causing those rates.
I work with police in a shall issue state. They are by a large margin in favor of the right to carry guns. The old canard that all police hate guns is false on the face of it. The ones who come out against guns are the administrators, the ones that must be politically correct to be promoted, the ones who haven’t been on the street in decades.
Bob, my apologies. I confused a post by someone else quoting statistics with yours.
Growing up in NYC, my home had a .38 snub-nose police special revolver, two 30-30 hunting rifles, and a 12-guage shotgun. Until the early ’80′s one of the rifles and the shotgun were displayed on racks in our living room and dining room. None were ever loaded in the house and the ammunition was locked up but the location of the lockbox known by everyone in my family. Everyone in the house was properly trained on the use of each and every one of those firearms.
I was trained in firearm safety by my father, a certified firearms instructor, from an early age. I received my first ‘weapon,’ a Daisy air rifle, for Christmas at the age of 8. I was given a Winchester 30-30 hunting rifle of my own when I turned 14.
Every male member of my father’s side of the family (and a couple of the female family members too) hunted in upstate NY every year around Thanksgiving. Everyone was trained in firearm usage and safety. Most of us were military veterans. (That came for me much later.)
Out of all those years and all those firearms, there was only one instance where a member of our family was nearly injured by a firearm, and that instance occurred when an untrained, first-time hunter tresspassed on our posted land and shot at the first thing he saw moving, which was my uncle. Thankfully, his aim was a bad as his firearm training and my uncle escape unscathed and had the presence of mind not to give into his first impulse to shoot back.
Firearm training is a necessary part of firearm ownership. If more people were trained in the proper use of firearms, and more citizens owned firearms, I can guarantee crime rates would come down across the nation.
One last point. My father posted signs on every window and the back door of our home stating that gun owners lived there. Want to know how many times my house was broken into during my lifetime? None, nada, zero.
I agree with Bob from VA. Virginia Tech is an excellent example to continue bringing up, because it is the perfect lesson of gun control. Guns were banned at VT, and yet it experienced the worst mass murder in many decades. From page 323 in More Guns, Less Crime:
“[W]hen states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings feel even further, on average by 78 percent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack.”
Keep it up, Bob. I’m right there with you. You know, as an ex-supporter of civilian disarmament myself, I can attest that recovery is possible.
“The country’s first major anti-gun law might have been the Sullivan Act. It was written by Timothy Sullivan who was basically a gangster…”
He was basically a Democrat…which is pretty much the same thing.
If the founding fathers had meant for the population to be armed they wouldn’t have confiscated all the guns on the fourth of July.
And if they meant for us to have cars, they wouldn’t have rode unicorns.
If you are referring to the Declaration of Independence, there is no mention of “confiscation of arms” in it, except insofar as the British Army had “triggered” the entire situation by sending troops to Lexington and Concord on 19 April 1775 for the purpose of confiscating the colonists’ stores of gunpowder. the Declaration does, however, list among the King’s “excesses and outrages”;
“HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.”
(Capitalization as in the original.)
Either you forgot your /sarc/ tag or you have gotten your history either from Bellesisles (Arming America, already discredited) or Zinn (People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present, well on its way to joining Bellesisles book on the shelf next to Clifford Irving’s book on Howard Hughes).
Either way, your argument lacks support.
clear ether
eon
What the heck are you talking about? No one confiscated any guns on the 4th of July, or we would all be speaking English today!
LOLOLOLOL!
Ha ha ha!
OMG, funniest thing I’ve heard today and I have 4 kids!
I think it became a mental illness after assault weapons ban and its expiration demonstrated that it had no affect on crime. As most folks in the US are pretty reasonable, it was readily apparent that societal factors were far more important in crime than LEGAL access to firearms.
You’ve swerved into the truth here. Since liberals dare not lay blame on any group of constituents crucial to their political careers, it’s incumbent upon them to lay blame on an object. “Assualt weapon” could be anything from an AR-15 to a baseball bat, to a pair of sharp scissors. Same with “man-caused-disaster”. It could include anything from a terrortist to an 80 y.o. plowing through a flea market ’cause he thinks he’s hitting the brake pedal.
In the first case, they choose to ignore a cultural disregard for human life as demonstrated daily in many large cities. In the second case, they choose to ignore a religious disregard for human life as demonstrated daily in many Middle Eastern cities. In both cases their preferred American is unarmed, unaware, and ill-prepared. Now, that’s insane.
Yep. I understand. Assault Weapon is a legal term vice a technical term which was developed by anti-gun politicians to try and confuse the non-gun public. Basically try and invoke the image of machine guns when AW laws are about banning semi-automatic weapons.
CA’s law states: “12276. As used in this chapter, “assault weapon” shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:…” and then goes on to list the specific rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as characteristics.
Some of the gun control supporters are con artists taking advantage of the mentally feeple or people who are nuts. Others want gun control because they regard the ability to own firearms should be a matter of social class, or a status symbol (I count Daly among these).
More precisely, they regard being attended by armed bodyguards, often with fully-automatic weapons, as the ultimate status symbol; see Rosie O’Donnell, David Dinkins, Ted Kennedy, et al.
IMPO, it was best summed up by a noted law-enforcement officer of the future;
“I am sick to the teeth of every two-bit grifter calling himself ‘Number One’ after he’s managed to steal enough small change to hire a couple of plug-uglies to strut around behind him packing blasters.”
- Lensman Kimball Kinnison, Sol III (Unattached) while masquerading as Cartiff the fence, to a Lonabarian thug. E.E. “Doc” Smith, “Second Stage Lensman”, Astounding Science Fiction, 1940.
clear ether
eon
Does anyone know where one of the lowest crime rate cities in the entire country is?
Kennesaw, Georgia
Does anyone know why the crime rate in Kennesaw, GA is so low?
Firearm Ownership is Mandatory for All Households in Kennesaw, Georgia
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738709/firearm_ownership_is_mandatory_for.html
Mr Fleming, gun control has ALWAYS been a mental illness, at least the way it was implemented. Wyatt Earp, as a town sheriff, used to require guns be checked into the sheriffs office and picked up upon leavung town, which makes more sense than what the far left does. Hitlers first move in Nazi germany was to pass guncontrol laws and Lenin and Trotsky did the same in the Soviet Union in 1919. We all saw what the consequences of that is. Thats what Dumbama wants in the USA.
Let’s think about the psychological drivers of gun haters.
I HATE the sound of people chewing with their mouth open. If I am in a restaurant and someone near by is doing this, I can ask for another table. But what happens if the place is SRO? My choices come down to just putting up with it (and having it take away from my enjoyment) or asking the stranger to chew with his mouth closed (and risk being seen as rude, intolerant (or racist), or getting a punch in the nose.)
Guns are dangerous. Even gun fans admit this. Gun haters see gun ownership around them as scary. They see that there is only two choices. Either they let me keep my guns and leave me alone or they try to get them gone. If they decide that they can’t stand you being left alone, then they again face two choices. Come to your house and explain their problem and ask you to help them (and risk failure and being seen as a controlling gun hater) or to use the government to force you to give them up.
Just like the restaurant, the choice of using the power source is too appealing and associated with very little real downside risk, so they always go for the government.
Ask the Gun Haters to give up something they like (say their first amendment right.) Afterall, fair is fair. Journolist and other left wing media cabals have demonstrated a tangible harm to the nation (covering up BHO’s weaknesses to get him elected and conspiring to call innocent people racist). If the Gun haters are motivated by a desire for a safer nation, then they should see no harm at all in surrendering just the civil rights of liberals.
I meant this reply to go to No.24 Jack in Silver Spring rather than No.25. Also “referred to above had people been educated” should read “referred to above could have been prevented had people been educated”. Sorry about the mix up.
Frank, I’d like to buy you a beer or two. It’s simply about freedom as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.If you don’t like guns, don’t own one, but leave me and my family the hell alone.
To Bob in Virginia –
Three of the four homicides you mention occurred in Chicago and DC. You don’t say when they occurred, but it would be interesting to know if they occurred after the strict gun laws went into effect. Also, the two cities you mention are heavily Afro-American, and, as I pointed out earlier, Afro-Americans (especially males in the 15-30 age range) have extraordinarily high homicide rates. That also might explain your girlfriend’s experience in the junior college in Chicago (which I bet was heavily Afro-American).
As for what cops say about why people use guns is anecdotal evidence. That is what they witness, especially in the places where have you been (Chicago and DC) where gun ownership is quite asymmetric (the bad guys have them and the good guys don’t, and the bad guys tend to fly off the handle fairly easily). Guns may be handy way to kill people but there are other ways. Indeed, firearms account for only about 2/3 of the homicides in the US. Clearly the other 1/3 occurs by other means. In that vein, if you goes back to 11th and 12th century England, you will find astoundingly high homicide rates and there were no firearms then. As Second Amendment types like to say, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and the English experience would seem to confirm that.
As for the high MD homicide rate with firearms, it is due only partly to Prince Georges County. The primary contributor is Baltimore which ranks right up there with Detroit as having an astounding homicide rate (with the Afro-American population being a major factor in both).
I’d like to think you’re right that the debate is over, Frank. Unfortunately, even if that’s true, you’re only talking about the US. It’ll be a long time before we gain back any ground here in Canada — we’re way farther down the nanny-state slope. And that hurts you too, because American lefists love to hold us up as a shining example.
Honestly, though, it wouldn’t matter if the statistics weren’t against gun control. More freedom would still be a better thing than less freedom. The drop in crime is just a bonus.
Zeke is right- today, America. next: restore the rights of gunowners in Canada and Britain.
The communists won’t stop meddling in every industry in this great country! Little Dick Durbin from Illinois is messing with the college textbook industry now!!! We need to stop this……..http://bit.ly/9iRBdf
Just to show how statistics can be doctored: The officialk “murder” rate in Japan
consists solely of incidents of premeditated murder in which the perpetuator is known,
did not commit suicide and has been apprehended. Deaths resulting from the commission of other felonies are not considered “murder” under Japanese statstics.
Neither are unexplained bodies. Neither are deaths resulting from terrorism or rebellion etc.
And most important of all, the spontaneous (that is unpremeditated) quarrel or attack
that results in death is not called “murder”. It is called “bodily injury resulting in death”. In the day that I researched all this, total “bodily injury” cases numbered
200,000 a year. I queried an experienced Japanese prosecutor whether or not 10% of those cases resulted in death. He replied that 10% was probably “too conservative”. The figure might well be closer to 15% rather than 10%.
In short, if Japanese statistics had been kept like the FBI statistics, Japan would have had a murder rate 2 to 4 times higher than that of the US.
Firearms are less common there than here, so of that “true” murder rate, firearms deaths
are of a lesser percentage. And when this is factored into the “deflated” rate, that
means that total Japanese firearms deaths, while low, are considerably higher than the 0.07 rate quoted.
PS My thanks to those Japanese who helped me unearth all this. While they were virtually unanimous in wishing that the US had more stringent laws, they readily
conceded that the publicized statistics were wildly inappropriate for making comparisons. Arigato, you all. Arigato.
Before I forget it: In the late 1960s a certain Carl Bakal (as I recall the name)
published an anti-gun screed in which he claimed that in the 20th Century, more Americans had died in civilian gunfire than had been killed in all of America’s wars combined.
Reaching that conclusion required quite a few inflationary statistical interpolations
as well as unwarranted assumptions about non-reporting areas and eras etc.
Then to get the wartime deaths down to desired levels the author simply omitted
262,000 dead Confederates. They were no longer “Americans” in his book.
The mental illness is self-induced and has been building for a while.
It’s not about taking your guns, it’s about taking your freedom. And they can’t do that if you armed. Those citizens who support gun control are the unwitting dupes of the statists.