The core problem with the argument over gun control is that there's not a shred of evidence that gun control actually reduces gun crime. Nada. If anything, increasing gun ownership seems to correlate with reducing crime. Since 1992, gun ownership in the U.S. has skyrocketed, helped recently in no small part by the most effective gun salesman in American history. And gun crimes have plummeted:
Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show...
In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.
The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren’t fatal fell by 69%.You would think that the fact that gun crime has plummeted while gun ownership has skyrocketed would have some bearing on the gun control debate, but you would be wrong. Go figure.
Around the world, high gun ownership doesn't seem to correlate with high homicide rates, either. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. And gun ownership correlates highly with political freedom.
As Seinfeld would say, what's the gun control debate about? It's about nothing.
Well, not quite nothing. Fact-free gun control advocacy is (in addition to the inevitable liberal moral preening) an effort by liberal Democrats to draw attention away from the fact that nearly all gun crime in the United States is committed by Democrats in municipalities governed by Democrats.
When thoughtful people look at the blood-soaked streets-- the Democrat-governed streets-- of Chicago and Detroit and New Orleans, Democrats say "Look over there-- there's the NRA!"
The NRA is the Democrat Party's Emmanuel Goldstein.
Bachfiend is going to love this one.
ReplyDeleteIf gun control worked, Mexico would be paradise. I'm sure someone's going to blame Mexico's violence problem on the US. They aren't entirely wrong. It would help if this administration weren't aiding and abetting mobsters bringing guns into Mexico.
JQ
Now to the actual subject at hand:
ReplyDeleteDr Egnor,
I do not see the 'gun debate' as any sort of real safety issue. It is all about control.
If the parties interested in real reform had any concept of how effective weapons restrictions can work, they would be focused on the use of pistols and sidearms- not semi-automatic rifles. They are not concerned about criminal gun use, and so they do not.
Instead, the parties bent on weapons control seek control over legal weapons ownership. They seek to severely limit the amount of legal weapons in the hands of normal people. This has been an incremental process and is by no means limited to the United States. It has been a global initiative. It has been promoted differently in different regions, but the underlying goal is the same: Disarm civilian populations.
The biggest hurdle for this mindset in the USA has been a strict loyalty to constitutional principles. While this loyalty has eroded as the populace becomes increasingly ignorant of what those rights are (and even what the United States are!), there is still serious opposition in the form of lobbyist groups and populist movements.
These (weapon control) parties have moved too quickly in the USA, and their objectives have been laid bare for all who care to see. They have used the politics of fear (ie using Aurora and Sandy Hook) to push a seemingly useless agenda on an unwitting population. It has backfired (no pun intended) and they have been set back.
But, they wont give up. It is a keystone in the agenda.
If current social and intellectual rot continues within the Western world, the population will be dumb enough within a generation to accept the whole security over liberty line.
Real gun safety? Concealable weapons should require a permit or licensing of the owner - at least in an urban setting. If I am not mistaken, that is already the case in most regions. Criminals caught using weapons should be severely punished. Again, I believe this is a reality. The problem with the latter is that minor crimes are treated just as harshly in many cases, thus removing the intended effect. If I am to be sentenced to YEARS in prison for petty theft, drugs, or some other such nonsense - why not use a gun in the commission - especially against a disarmed populace? What's the difference? Do the maths, folks.
Reduce sentencing for petty crime and intensify sentencing for violent crime and you'll get a very different situation.
Of course, the prison complex would be far less profitable if that kind of policy was implemented.
The only compromise with these control freaks is NO compromise. Organizations like the NRA are essential in countering these agenda driven parties. However, as you note Dr Egnor, that makes them prime targets for the public relations wings of these groups (certain political movements, media, and advertising campaigns).
Goldstein indeed.
Crusader, you are exactly right. One way I've heard it expressed is "gun control is not about guns and all about control". Today's new revelations in The Guardian about warrantless wiretapping simply reinforces your point.
DeleteOn your point about gun crime, it's interesting to observe that the gun charges are among the first and most likely to be dropped in plea bargains. Amazingly,
Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows that the Northern Illinois district [including Chicago] ranked 90th out of 90 [Federal judicial districts] in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita...
The Syracuse study also showed that nationally federal gun crime prosecutions hit a decade low in 2011 under President Obama, down 40% from their peak under President George W. Bush in 2004
--- Investors Business Daily (4/2/13)
There were 506 murders in Chicago last year.
While Rahm Emanuel and the Left's sock puppet, Barack Obama, agitate for more gun laws, Chicago's prosecutors do not prosecute the gun laws they have. One might call them "Goldstein Laws", as they are addressed to an imaginary target: the mythical "law-abiding gun owner with a black gun gone berserker".
To put the above facts about plea bargains and gun law prosecution in perspective,
About 95 percent of all felony convictions in the United States are the result of plea bargains.
--- Frontline (pbs.org)
By the way, Popeye (see above), Mathoo, and Troi are supporters, cheerleaders, and apologists for a regime that presided over 19 Sandy Hooks in Chicago last year, as well as an unknown number of Sandy Hooks in Mexico sanctioned by the sitting Attorney General of the US.
DeleteAdm.
Delete"gun control is not about guns and all about control"
Precisely. Guns do not have rights. They are tools/objects. The rights that are being curtailed are those of PEOPLE - not the guns; which obviously have no rights. The right we are curtailing is the right to self defence. Defence from criminals and animals, sure. More importantly defence against authoritarianism (the control freaks).
When we talk about 'gun control' we are actually talking about controlling people.
Normal people.
Citizens.
This is why this mindset despises these rights, even if only symbolic. They cannot broach any sort of challenge to their supreme authority. It is almost a feudal mindset.
As a sidenote: You are 100% correct on the issue of 'black guns' with scary rails etc. This is a nakedly image based form of propaganda.
kw, you must be afraid of black people with guns. that's why you supports gun control. i'd give you a dime to buy a clue, but you'd probably spend it on whatever drugs you're high on, so i'll provide one free of chrage. conservatives are against gun control for two reasons. the first is that it doesn't work and the second is because it's unconstitutional. race really has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeletenaidoo
I think we can safely say that KW is afraid of black folks exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. Good to know.
ReplyDelete--Francisca S.
I thought the bigot was going to come back and deny it. Guess not. The charge must stick.
ReplyDeleteLittle John