Opinion, Meet Fact: “Gun Control” Doesn’t
By Mary Theroux • Wednesday February 27, 2013 1:31 PM PDT • 6 Comments
The front page of Tuesday’s “Bay Area” section of the San Francisco Chronicle features a story on the latest Field Poll results: “Support Grows for Gun Control,” reporting that a majority of California voters now “view stricter gun control laws as more important than protecting the constitutional right to own a firearm.”
Four pages later, the back page of the very same section of the newspaper carries the headline: “Assailent with AK-47 Arrested in Shooting“.
The latter relates the tale of two men who got into an argument Sunday night. One followed the other home, pulled out an AK-47 and shot up the house, also hitting the man being followed in the leg.
The shooter drove off, but was later arrested.
A police spokesman quoted in the story said he did not know exactly what charges the arrested man will face, “but noted that it is illegal to possess a fully automatic AK-47.” He further noted:
Criminals don’t adhere to any laws. That’s why they are criminals.
Tags: Bill of Rights, California, Civil Liberties, Constitution, crime, Gun Control, Personal Liberty, Police, Property Rights, Second Amendment 
Bet it wasn’t a full-auto, either!
Scott Severin | Feb 27, 2013 | Reply
Haha, Cali Goons! Their excessive gun control hasn’t worked, so they want to spread another layer on.
Meanwhile, in Vt., a 16 year old can purchase and conceal carry a firearm without a permit and we have one of the lowest gun violence rates in the state.
But stats are irrelevant as long as you’re supporting gun rights.
EmVee | Feb 27, 2013 | Reply
I have on idea why this is anything but a “duh” statement. there is a lot of info on the subject and as it seems to me, the option in more industrialized nations seems to be between a higher gun murder rate or a drastically higher violent crime rate.
there is clearly a higher risk of death in households with a gun in it, which is as it would be if any thought is put into it.. any situation where one may have to use a gun, if one is available, is instantly life or death situation by virtue of the presence of the gun. this holds true even with police, they are normally killed with their own duty weapon (over another gun), simply having the gun makes every situation they are in one that risks their life.
having no guns (worth counting) in a population, in the most industrialized nations over those that are less industrialized, does lower gun murder rates and in fact murder rates over all seem to be lower than the u.s.’s murder rates. this does not hold true to other ‘most industrialized’ countries where the murder rates are similar with and without guns. what is unquestionably increased, most likely as a result of the bans on guns, is that violent crimes become common to a fault. comparing England to the u.s. is the most common comparison that I have noticed. murder rates per 100,000 people are 1/4 in England. violent crime rates are 4 times that of the u.s.’s in England. the gun murder rates of England is something to the order of 400 times less than the u.s.’s this is somewhat misleadingly used in the media to say that it is insanely more dangerous in the u.s., while there is, in total, around a 1.2/100,000 chance that you will get murdered in England in the u.s. it is, again in total, about 4.8/100,000 (making it around 4 times as likely) when considering all types of murder, not just guns. not the 400 times,or sometimes more, that gets referenced.
the odds of being a victim of violent crimes, on the other hand, in England are around 1361/100,000 while in the u.s. it is around 383/100,000 making it around 4 times less violent than England.
another thing that is worth consideration is: in the u.s. there is 6 times the number of cities where the population is 250,000 and higher. this is worth bearing in mind as in both countries that were in comparison in cities with a population of 250k and up the violent crime rate and murder rate is about 2 times the national average. this has the effect of “padding the stats” against the u.s.
I am forced to see this all as a choice to be made. choice one is to have a higher risk of death ‘made’ by exercising my right to defend myself compared to the choice of having a higher risk of being a victim of crime with no right to defend myself.
there is a moral sidestep that also seems to be in play on all of this; if the police kill a person on my behalf my hands are clean. this is preposterous to my nature, I cannot see this as a valid thought. however, this does seem to be the case on many of the people that I have debated on the ‘issue’ of guns.
ok, at this point i’m going to stop. i’m probably beating a dead horse anyway.
have a wonderful time
jacob | Feb 27, 2013 | Reply
Thanks, Jacob,
This article well addresses many of your surmises:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3568
It details, for example, a 2004 study by the National Academy of Sciences that couldn’t identify a single gun law that had lowered violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. This wasn’t a minor report, but a massive review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, and dozens of government studies.
And that “Annually, three to six times as many victims successfully defend themselves with guns as criminals misuse handguns.”
You’ll also be relieved to learns that “Resistance with a gun appears to be the most effective [response to criminal attack] in preventing serious injury [to the victim].”
Happy reading!
Mary
Mary Theroux | Mar 4, 2013 | Reply
“the option in more industrialized nations seems to be between a higher gun murder rate or a drastically higher violent crime rate.”
Bingo, Jacob. The crux is that the entire concept of “gun deaths” is a red herring. If they can get you talking about “gun deaths” instead of “murder rate” or “violent crime,” they’ve already stolen the argument.
Whenever somebody starts mouthing off about “gun deaths,” I respond that the US has quite a problem with “police brutality,” whereas Somalia has almost none, so how much better must it be to live in Somalia?
Henry Bowman | Mar 5, 2013 | Reply
This quotation seems to fit the debate: “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.”
Just seeing the writer’s name induces “hair on fire” response by progressives. (Initials are A.R.) Unfortunately, emotion and misinformation seems to work for them and their ‘core values’.
My pragmatic offer for gun control seems simple: first, disarm the criminals ...
Joseph L. Elkhorne | Mar 5, 2013 | Reply