Monday, July 8, 2013

'We're... we're... blowing this gun control opportunity!'

Nicholas Kristof:

How Could We Blow This One?
I just finished a five-month leave from this column, writing a book with my wife, Sheryl WuDunn, and what struck me while away from the daily fray is a paradox that doesn’t seem quite patriotic enough for July Fourth.

But I’ll share it anyway: On security issues, we Americans need a rebalancing. We appear willing to bear any burden, pay any price, to confound the kind of terrorists who shout “Allahu akbar” (“God is great”) and plant bombs, while unwilling to take the slightest step to curb a different kind of terrorism — mundane gun violence in classrooms, cinemas and inner cities that claims 1,200 times as many American lives.

When I began my book leave, it seemed likely that the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut would impel Congress to approve universal background checks for gun purchases. It looked as if we might follow Australia, which responded to a 1996 gun massacre by imposing restrictions that have resulted in not a single mass shooting there since.

Alas, I was na├»ve. Despite 91 percent support from voters polled in late March and early April, Congress rejected background checks. Political momentum to reduce gun killings has now faded — until the next such slaughter.

Oh, the horror! How could the gungrabbers lose, despite a classroom of dead kids in a gun-free zone in a gungrabber state with gungrabber laws that didn't work?

Why would anybody conclude that a mass shooting in a gun control utopia like Connecticut is evidence against, not for, gun control?

It's a tough loss to take. Logic (gun-free zones make mass shootings easier), evidence (gun control doesn't work) and the #*^# Second Amendment keep getting in the way of moral preening!

So sad.

But keep the faith, Nick. Some of us are quite successfully applying the actual lessons of recent atrocities to passing new laws, quietly and quite effectively.

The difference between us and you, Nicky, is that when we win, we actually save thousands of lives.


  1. 32,000 people a year are killed in this country by guns. That’s more people annually than the Syrian civil war. Soon more people in this country will be dying from gunshots than in car accidents.

    Egnor asserts that more guns and less regulation will address this problem, but unfortunately for the gun nuts, the facts don’t back that up.

    Notice Massachusetts and New Jersey, with their stricter gun laws, have only 4.1 and 5.2 deaths per 100,000 annually due to guns, while Wyoming has 15.6 and Alaska has 20.4. Clearly more guns and less gun regulation result in more gun deaths.

    Gun control has to be on a national level because no matter how strict a local gun law is, you can simply drive to where their aren’t strict gun laws and fill up your shopping cart.


    1. Gun laws don't work. If they did, gungrabber utopias like Chicago, Washington, New Orleans, etc would be peaceful paradises.

      The most stringent gun control in the Western Hemisphere is in Mexico.

      The best correlation with gun violence is a Democrat populace governed by Democrat government.

      Nearly all gun crime in the US is committed by Democrats in municipalities governed by Democrats.

      You assholes are the problem, not the solution.

    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 8, 2013 at 8:08 AM

      Popeye, I thought Progressives were in favor of euthanasia. The chart you linked to includes suicides. Do you support euthanasia?

      Not only that, it includes legal self-defense by police and civilians (code Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge). Do you support self-defense and defense of others?

    3. @KW:

      From your link:

      "Age-adjusted rates per 100,000 U.S. standard population. Populations used for computing death rates are postcensal estimates based on the 2000 census estimated as of July 1, 2010. Since death rates are affected by the population composition of a given area, age-adjusted death rates should be used for comparisons between areas because they control for differences in population composition. Data are for 2010."

      "Age-adjusted"? So they rigged the data. Firearm deaths of youths in inner cities were suppressed, while firearm deaths of older people in rural areas were exaggerated.

      The Wyoming firearm death rate is not twice the Illinois death rate. How about this: I'll walk down the street of a poor neighborhood in Laramie at midnight, you walk down the street of a poor neighborhood in Chicago at midnight.

      [Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include ICD-10 Codes W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearm; Codes X72-X74, Intentional self-harm by firearm; X93-X95, Assault by firearm; Y22-Y24, Firearm discharge, undetermined intent; and Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge.]

      So self-defense and legal intervention were included in the numbers. And suicides. But you believe in assisted suicide, KW. So why include people who were merely exercising their "autonomy rights" in gun-death figures?

      You're not saying that assisted suicide is a crime, are you?

    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM

      You know, Popeye, there's no better assistant for an "assisted suicide" than a 12-gauge shotgun.

    5. If suicides are counted in gun crime deaths, we need to count physician-assisted suicides as intentional poisoning deaths.

    6. "there's no better assistant for an "assisted suicide" than a 12-gauge shotgun."

      Cheaper than a doctor, no waiting, and it makes house calls.

  2. So there is no gun problem because “urban” people killing each other is OK, Democrats killing each other is OK, Suicide by gun is OK, and trigger happy cops are OK. As long as old rural white people aren’t killing each other and themselves in excessive numbers there is no need to do anything. Got it.


    1. You're crazy, KW.

    2. Massachusetts 4.1 gun deaths per 100,000, Alaska 20.4 gun deaths per 100,000. You are five times more likely to die of a bullet in Alaska, because Alaskans have lots of guns, not because they don’t have enough guns. Even Illinois, home of your favorite example, Chicago, is well below the national average of per capita gun deaths. All you have is rote talking points; your gun apologetics are even weaker than your religious apologetics.


    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM

      Firearms ranked 10th on the list of Alaska’s top causes of injury deaths in 2005, according to the Alaska Trauma Registry and the Department of Health & Social Services. The top three causes of death were poison, drownings and motor vehicle accidents.
      --- E Miller, Juneau Empire, 11/28/11

      Guns aren't the problem. Poison, water, and motor vehicles are the problem.

  3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 8, 2013 at 3:08 PM

    Popeye, you never did answer my questions. You just keep copyng and pasting text from the Violence Policy Center. Here's a reminder, with some text you can copy and paste:

    1) I believe in euthanasia. Yes/No
    2) I believe in a right to self-defense. Yes/No

  4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

    Since Wednesday afternoon [7/3/13], 11 people have been killed and at least 62 were wounded in [Chicago] violence...
    --- DNAInfoChicago

    The Police Supt. is "disappointed", wants to know "what is going on".

    In other news, the Violence Policy Center is "alarmed" because guns are still available in Igloo, AK.