(Psst,I think Maria Gambrelli did it!)
Posted on 01/12/2005 7:28:43 AM PST by neverdem
Crime: The most pre-eminent scientific group in America has produced a definitive analysis of our decades-long experience with gun control and shattered what has become an article of faith among proponents.
The 328-page report by the National Academy of Sciences is based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.
It could find no evidence to support the conclusion that government restrictions on firearms reduces gun crime, gun violence and gun accidents.
As noted by John Lott Jr., resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and frequent contributor to this page, this stunning indictment of the ineffectiveness of gun-control laws was produced by a panel set up during the Clinton administration. All but one of its members were known before their appointments to favor gun control. No NRA shills here.
Lott credits the report for pointing out the obvious: Criminals who use guns to break laws will break laws to use guns. He also notes that the report failed to include in its analysis how gun-ownership restrictions may restrict defensive uses of firearms and endanger potential victims.
Hale DeMar of Wilmette, Ill., recently faced criminal charges for the successful defense of his family from a felon who invaded his home not once, but twice. Seems he violated Wilmette's handgun ban.
Suppose DeMar obeyed the ban and the outcome was different. Suppose the family was slain by the intruder. Instead of DeMar facing up to a year in jail, a $2,500 fine for not having an Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card and a $750 fine for violating Wilmette's handgun ban, the morning headlines would have read something like, "Family Slain — Police Have Few Clues."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Even more timely with respect to the Miller decision, the Marines were probably using shotguns during various "Banana War" interventions, IIRC.
Period. End of story. "Living document" types need not respond. And don't anyone get us off on some idiot straw man about NBC weapons either. That dog don't hunt. Never has.
Please ping me when you encounter them. It's almost as fun as a ZOT thread.
You and I shared our first impression, I think. The chart does not show that an increase in ownership reduced crime. However, it does negate the liberal argument that an increase in ownership increases crime.
I think you hit the nail on the head with #3!!!!!
Exactly!!!!!
60 Minutes just did a few days ago.
Anyone who doesn't understand this shouldn't be trusted to operate heavy machinery, raise children, vote, etc.
Any politician or bureaucrat that doesn't fully uphold the 2nd amendment needs to be fired.
(Psst,I think Maria Gambrelli did it!)
Exactamundo! The same with the attack on God, especially Christianity, PCism, affirmative action, turning our schools into Communist madrassas, stealing elections, corruption of the language to make words have no fixed meaning, judicial judges, and on and on. The state will brook no competition, just as Allah commands the killing of nonbelievers. The Wahabbis and the Communists are singing from the same hymnal.
Well, well the obvious is finally come to gun control advocates. The problem I see is that there is a huge amount of people making a lot of money scaring and coercing local and state governments into passing gun laws and I don't see them giving up that gig any time soon. Yep Sarah Brady has a sweet gig. Sorry to her and her husband's injury due to that nut case but gun control would not have helped him a bit.
Won't mean a thing to gun control groups or the naive. The gun control groups are in it for the MONEY. They are 501 (3) (C) organizations and have full time, paid employees such as executive directors, executive assistants and receptionists (as well as the naive who volunteer for nothing), these people have a job because of gun control. Some exec. directors make $100,000+ per year. Why should they quit because the report of a study proves that their position is wrong? As long as the checks clear the bank, gun control activists will exist.
What's my solution? Pay them more not to champion gun control. It would be cheaper for the NRA to buy out the gun control executives of these organizations then it is to fight them on the political battle field. It's not about "guns", it's about money.
BTTT
My approach was if you educate the naive, (their financial base) they will no longer donate to those evil organizations and then they will fold from lack of support....
With all due respect, I don't disagree with your tactic, only its scope. The MMM is zip! Means nothing. Its the yearly pledged donations from Monster .Com and AOL-Time-Warner that the non-profit and not-for-profit political activists organizations use to buy their BMW's. That's why so few people can make such a big stink, they have big money, not a big movement. That "Big Money" money, however, is also made available to the likes of Chas. Schumer and Diane Feinstein.
As Rush has always said; "Follow the money". Gun control is no different. If Browning, Colt, Ruger, Berreta, Glock, etc., had had the foresight to just hire away the executive directors of the gun control organizations, we would be time and money ahead and we would not have lost so many gun rights and the manufactures gun sales. As "Pogo" said: "We have found the enemy and they are us!".
It could easily have made things worse: IIRC, Hinckley immaturely frittered away his money by buying cheap handguns as soon as he could afford them - three times. If the gun controllers had had their way and outlawed 'Saturday night specials', he would have been forced to wait until he could afford a quality gun that would have done a much more thorough job.
That's my guess.
Good point!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.