Shot In The Dark

Investor's Business Daily ^ | January 12, 2005 | Editorial

[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."

[Cobra64]

There are even a number of @$$holes even on this forum who believe in gun control. I won't name any, but most people know who they are.

I know. It's a shame that these jerks have never been to a range. When I stumble upon these myopic dolts, I try to get them to a trap range. More times than not, I have 'em turned around, and they come to me to ask my advice about buying their first shooter.

[Badray]

Thanks for the ping Joe.

[Badray]

I like the way you think.

I've suggested that we pay our congresscritters more to stay home and away from DC where they cause so much trouble. A million apiece would be a lot cheaper than what it costs us now and maybe we can even eliminate their pension grabs at this price.

[Blue Collar Christian]

If the NRA hired these creeps, there would be a void that would quickly be filled by other creeps. We gotta get to the money supply; the sheeple who contribute to their organizations.

[philman_36]

There are even a number of @$$holes even on this forum who believe in gun control.
I believe in gun control and Yosemite Sam needs gun control!

Broadside and barn come to mind. {;^)

[from occupied ga]

I didn't quite meant it that way, but yes ol' sam indeed needs better control.

[philman_36]

I didn't quite meant it that way, but yes ol' sam indeed needs better control.
I know. Looking to make you smile or even laugh.

[looscnnn]

I don't know about that, I think they fall into one or more of the following groups:

-The clueless
-Those that think that all people (criminals included) will obey laws and believe in the goodness of all mankind (could be clueless).
-Those that don't/won't admit they are wrong to keep people from questioning what else they were wrong about.
-Those that think they are right and everyone else is wrong.