Posted on 09/02/2016 8:04:25 PM PDT by richardb72
It's a sustained game of whack-a-mole. Up pops the claim, and in comes the hammer. Bang! Bang! Bang! And that's why you're wrong.
Believe that most academics are in favor of more gun control? Bang, you're wrong. Convinced that extending background checks is a no-brainer? Bang, you're wrong. Outraged that research into "gun violence" is outlawed in the United States? Bang, bang, bang again. Nothing escapes Lott's gaze: Not the idea that American gun violence is unique among the world's nations; not the claim that Australia's harsh restrictions yielded a worthwhile outcome; not the recent hysteria over the prevalence of "mass shootings"; not the fallacious belief that "Stand Your Ground" laws hurt, rather than help, minorities. And, one by one, he addresses them. At his best, he dismantles shoddy and mendacious work with the skill of an experienced surgeon. At his worst, he presents the best possible counter-cases with misplaced confidence. Still, in both cases, the corrective is welcome.
Some of the scams that Lott exposes are indeed extraordinary.
(Excerpt) Read more at crimeresearch.org ...
F*** National Review! Gone off the deep end with this piece. They’ve got founder Bill Buckley lashed down so he can’t spin.
“Australia’s harsh gun laws yielded a worthwhile outcome”!!?
Good! Then move to Oz and enjoy!
Did you actually read the post? The discussion on Australia has a “not” in front of it. The point of this review is that Lott dismantles all sorts of pro-gun control arguments, and that would include the one that people point to Australia as a model for us to follow.
John Lott’s home should be a national monument.
Ping
Lott is a national treasure.
Cooke is a reluctant hack. He claims Trump will attack gun rights as President!
Dreck.
IMHO this was/is amongst the emptiest and most poorly written op/ed piece I’ve read in a long time. It’s fine Mr. Cooke praises Lott but what the hell was the point of this piece?
Trump may though he has indicated 2A support. the other candidates WILL. ergo if you care about the second amendment there is only one choice for president.
“Trump may though he has indicated 2A support. the other candidates WILL. ergo if you care about the second amendment there is only one choice for president.”
It is possible that Trump could backtrack about the Second Amendment. It seems highly unlikely.
Trump, in his positions, placed on paper, has been more pro-Second Amendment than any other presidential candidate since 1850.
Only a trivial fraction of a percent of all guns ever wounds or kills anyone. If “the purpose of a gun” actually were “only to kill people,” the statistics on murder - in rural America particularly - would make the current toll in Chicago look like orderly society in action. No, the purpose of a gun is encapsulated in the expression, “Mister Colt makes all men equal.”In their propensity and capacity for violence, people are not naturally equal, and that inequality is a hazard to civil society. Lawful gun owners go to the trouble of carrying around a heavy object, and taking care that it is kept from misuse. And, especially in the case of the lawful concealed carrier, the effect of their effort has a “halo effect” extending a measure of protection to everyone else, who cannot safely be presumed to be defenseless.
Weapons abolitionists are objectively enemies of real, effective equality and civility. “Liberal?” Hardly.
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.