Myths About Gun Control

Real Clear Politics ^ | October 19, 2005 | John Stossel

[elbucko]

"Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness"

That won't even get a search warrant unless you bribe the judge.
Which, of course, is what gun control is really about, money.

[RKV]

Sorry, but while firearms ownership is widespread (including full auto weapons) in the countries you mention (Israel and Switzerland) their gun laws are not lax.

"Even if you qualify for the right to buy a gun, getting to the point where you can actually purchase and take one home is fairly grueling. After a person puts in the application to the Interior Ministry, it takes up to about six weeks to check out his background and situation to determine if should get the license. If his request is accepted, he is notified by mail. He takes the notice of approval to a gun store and buys a gun - but he doesn't take the gun home yet. First, he has to take a shooting instruction lesson, that lasts about an hour, which concludes with the firing of 50 bullets at a target 10 meters away, and, in nearly all cases, the instructor's signature that the shooter has shown reasonable proficiency. Then the prospective gun owner takes the instructor's signature, plus the gun registration, and a letter attesting to a clean bill of health from his family doctor, back to the Interior Ministry which, if everything checks out, hands him his license. He then takes the license back to the gun store, which gives him the purchased gun it's been holding for him. Now he owns it, can carry it wherever he goes, and can renew it every three years by firing another 50 bullets at a licensed shooting range." http://www.jpfo.org/derfner-people.htm

Also the crime rate in Israel is not low - admittedly this is due to murders committed by Islamofascists. Brazil and Russia have high crime rates it is true, but their gun laws are less strict than say the UK.

I agree that self-defense is a human right and the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states - therefore the majority of the so-called "gun laws" on the books now are unconstitutional. That said, we need to get our facts straight and I believe that your comments are in error. Flame on.

[x5452]

The second amendment was designed so that the people could take defense against a tyrannous government, as they had just done against england, and has nothing to do with government run armies, regardless of naming semantics.

[Question_Assumptions]

For those liberals who like to claim that if only gun control were universal in the US and there were fewer guns, it wouldn't be so easy for criminals to get them, Japan has draconian anti-gun laws and it's still possible to find black market guns there if you want one. Let's just say that the fall of the Soviet Union opened up new market opportunities for groups of people well versed in ignoring the law and smuggling goods.

[goldstategop]

What's so horrible about guns? Even John Kerry had to pretend to dress up as a hunter. Liberals bewail assault weapons but it was the musket that won the day at Bunker Hill. Just ask Denny Crane. Liberals can't even hunt. And those who seek to disarm Americans are no friends of freedom.

(Denny Crane: "Gun Control? For Communists. She's A Liberal. Can't Hunt.")

[RKV]

The militia (as opposed to the army or select militia [now the National Guard]) has three constitutionally specified missions. Article 1 Section 8 (on the legislature) says Congress can "calling [sic] forth the militia to [1)]execute the laws of the union, [2)] suppress insurrections and [3)] repel invasions." The Federalist Papers deal with the issue you describe - defense against tyranny.

[Jim Verdolini]

"But I have not seen anything like this from the CDC... I wonder what his source is."

Wrong group, right conclusions

It was teh national Academies of Science:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/

[blau993]

Israel and Switzerland admittedly have low crime rates and almost universal gun ownership. However, both have the advantage of being relatively prosperous nations with fairly homogenous populations. Neither has the pockets of extreme poverty and disaffected minorities you would find in Russia, Brazil, or even the United States. The correlation between their minimalistic gun laws and their crime rates is not all that strong.

A much stronger argument can be made (and is made by scholars such as John Lott) by comparing crime rates in counties in the US which allow concealed carry to nearby counties that do not allow it. Rates of violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery and assualt) tend to fall in the former and almost simultaneously to rise in the latter. Criminals may be stupid, but they are not dumb. They commit their crimes in the places where they stand the least chance of encountering an armed victim.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Israel & Switzerland have some of the most lax guns laws in the world and their crime rates are very low...

Actually, Switzerland's gun laws are anything but "lax" -- they require every adult male to keep a full-auto machine gun in his home. Funny how the Nazis skipped Switzerland . . .

[grayforkbeard]

Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.



That sums up why all prohibition laws don't work. With enough $ and the right connection you can buy a slave. Sex, Drugs and guns are easy.

[mountainlyons]

It is safer in Baghdad where almost every one has a gun than it is in the "gun control" hight crime cities in the US of A.

Happiness is a warm gun and a tight group!

[doggieboy]

I never owned or cared to own a gun. After Katrina hit the "Big Sleazy", my opinion changed. I'm looking at my owners manual for my new Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun as I write this. For Christmas I am getting a Walther P38.

[traviskicks]

Interesting, some expanded thoughts on the matter:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/gunsandcrime.htm

[rhombus]

The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right.

This was my favorite part. I can't count how many times liberals have given me this National Guard bit.

[ctdonath2]

They (or some equivalent group; I don't have the report handy) did exactly that kind of study, reporting in hundreds of pages of detail. The results were clear. They didn't like the results, so they said they needed to study it more.

[xsrdx]

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Oh, now that is good.

[oyez]

And those who seek to disarm Americans are no friends of freedom

As a city dweller, If we had to give up our arms the gangs and thugs would still have theirs. And knowing the police have gang ties and/or afraid of the gangs, guess who would have the freedom.

[oyez]

In this day and time the President has more control of the National Guard than the govenors did before the era of 9-11. I would consider the NG to be part oa a standing army and not a militia. I would remind those 2nd Amendment protestors that because of that fact there is no "militia."

[DaveCooper]

BTTT

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

I would remind EVERYONE that "gun control" means hitting what you shoot at. Ain't no law that can impose real or imagined gun control.