Pat Summerall emails me:
Kevin Drum rounds up the evidence against libertarian “scholar” John Lott, a guy widely relied upon on by pundits on the right for evidence that gun control actually produces more crime. Seems Lott may have fabricated a survey he once did on defensive gun use. Is there more? Stay tuned. A more definitive takedown of Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime can be found here.
We just noticed that InstaPundit has been taking issue with Brent Kendall’s new Washington Monthly article, “License to Kill: How the GOP helped John Allen Muhammad get a sniper rifle.” First he decided the article was terrible, sight unseen, because the headline referred to Muhammed’s gun as a sniper rifle when it was actually an assault rifle. (Never blame a journalist for his headline — we don’t pick ’em.) Then he wrote that, according to Kendall “the gun and bullets are apparently responsible for the deaths, not Muhammad and Malvo, who in this report merely occupied a Chevrolet Caprice — an offense against automotive taste, perhaps, but no more.” Surely the professor can do better than that. Blame the person, not the gun, is a favored libertarian argument against gun control, but it’s silly. Muhammad and Malvo’s killing spree simply would not have been possible had they not been able to illegally acquire a high-powered rifle. You can’t kill from two hundred yards with a hunting knife. You can’t strangle somebody from the trunk of a car.
Sigh.
I haven’t written much about l’affaire Bellesiles, for a variety of reasons, including some personal ones (hell, may as well acknowledge it…we have a Christmas card from his dad on the mantel). I’ve actually had some correspondence from Lott, although I’ve just scanned his work and the work that has grown up in opposition and support of his work.
But I’ll divert for a moment into the meta-politics here for a moment. Pat isn’t interested in having a dialog about gun control. There are some ‘tells’ that give it away pretty quickly…“scholar” John Lott…takedown of his work…it’s WWE time, folks.
And I’m not interested in being a luchador.
There are real issues around the murder rate in the United States. But since I don’t live in Peter Pan’s world where wishing and clapping my hands makes it so, the guns out there in the world will not simply disappear. Neither, I remind my shooting friends, will the regulation of the personal ownership and possession of guns. For the foreseeable future include figuring out how to live as safely as possible in a society where there are a whole lot of guns, and figure out how to do so while maintaining some semblance of individual rights.
The U.K. continues it’s crackdown, and to what effect? They police are so buried in crime they can’t even investigate property crimes any more.
And to Pat’s (and the original author’s) position on the D.C. shooters, I’ll suggest a few words in response:
Ted Bundy
John Wayne Gacy
Julio Gonzalez
Thanks man.
This is a point I try to emphasize to people. Fact of the matter is that people aren’t going to give up their guns. They almost never do. They tried universal registration in Canada, and now have a couple million Canadian citizens who are felons by dint of the fact that they refuse to comply.
The guns aren’t going away. And we can no longer say with authority that countries with strict gun bans are less violent–that argument has evaporated in recent years.
A lot of us have ’em, and aren’t giving ’em up. You can pillory us, deplore us, call us names–it just makes us more stubborn and resentful.
If you can start by treating us with respect, maybe there’s something we can talk about, you know?
Dean
Huh, Lott must be crazy – people never use guns in self defense (sarcasm):
Here
Here
and Here
Here’s more – just heard it on the radio:
One old one going to trial
And a recent one
“The U.K. continues it’s crackdown, and to what effect? They police are so buried in crime they can’t even investigate property crimes any more.”
Not sure what the point of this was, but the murder rate in Britain is still less than 1/3 that of the US. With freely available guns I am sure it would be much worse than the US>
Dave,
The UK has ALWAYS had a lower murder rate than the US, and their gun control laws didn’t get much tighter than ours until about 30 years ago.
The US’s knife murder rate, for instance, is much higher than the UK’s knife murder rate, although knives are freely available in both countries.
Also, the UK’s murder rate has been climbing steadily every year since the massive 1997 pistol ban. Guns ARE freely available in the UK, much as cocaine is freely available in the US.
Both the US and the UK have some level “knife control”.
However, neither has any controls on possession and carrying of fists and feet.
Yet, the US’ rate of “with fist/feet” murder has long been significantly higher than the UK’s.
Is the difference due to inferior fists/feet in the UK, do UK folks not know how to use what they’ve got, or, do Americans just die easier?
From The BBC:…Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but “particular cultural factors” are to blame.
A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.
…
Andy,
On the “die easier” question, the answer might be yes. The US is a huge country which has vast tracts of land with limited access to good emergency medicine. Harborview Medical Center in Seattle is the only level 1 trauma center for at least a 4 state area: WA, OR, ID, and…AK (I’m not sure about MT). If an Alaskan need the best emergency care because of severe head trauma, he needs to come a heck of a long ways.
The UK is not nearly as large, and it’s physically impossible to get as far from an emergency room there as is possible here. That’s at least part of the explanation for increased gun deaths in states with high gun ownership–Alaskans can get a lot further fromt the hospital than Rhode Islanders.
“This is a point I try to emphasize to people. Fact of the matter is that people aren’t going to give up their guns.”
The point I try to emphasize to people is that gunloons will never, never honestly address the issue.
Tell us, Dean, how many organizations are there in the US that advocate a total gun ban? The correct answer is zero. Yet, the issue–as framed by gunloons–is that there are a multitude of powerful groups calling for a complete and total gun ban.
Yet, there are several gunloon groups which seek to make more guns accessible to more people with even fewer restrictions than the almost non-existent gun control laws currently on the books.
Contrary to your opinion, international comparisons demonstrate more stringent gun control leads to a safer society. For example, the gun homicide rate in the UK is a fraction of what it is here. Gunloons will often point to the fact that overall crime has risen in the UK in the past two years; they will attribute this to the 1997 gun control laws in that country. What they won’t admit is that crime rates were higher still in 1991-1994 before the gun laws they find so offensive were implemented.
Here in the US, we are also experiencing higher crime rates over the past two years–in a country where guns are more easily obtained than cigarettes.
Frankly, it is the height of ignorance to demand that anyone with a fistful of cash can obtain a firearm without demonstrating some semblance of: training in their safe use and operation, mental and physical competancy.
Gosh, Guy, I can’t tell you how much being characterized as a “gunloon” helps convince me to sit down and have a reasoned discussion with you and your team.
I think I summarized it earlier…
“Personally, in an environment that wasnt so polarized, Id be a moderate. If I wasnt convinced by things I had read directly from the individuals driving the gun-control movement that their ultimate goal is gun prohibition, Id probably be pretty open to reasonable governmental controls on firearms. But Im a slippery slope believer, and as a consequence often find myself on the side of people whose views are more absolutist than mine.”
So smile and wave as you drive by; I doubt I’ll be joining your parade.
First, AL, I took issue largely with Dean Esmay’s comments.
Second; again, I’d point out the fact there is no national organization calling for anything close to a complete ban on all guns. Heck, I doubt you’d be able to find a nationally known individual advocating anything of the kind.
Third, there are plenty of national organizations promoting cutting back on the few watered-down gun control initiatives in place today. In short, there is a slippery slope but its grade is running the opposite of what you believe.
It’s all about responsibility, AL. Why make a deadly weapon (some of which have no legitimate hunting, sport, or self-defense uses) in the hands of people whose sole standard of ownership seems to be having a fistful of cash?
I take issue with some of the beliefs of comments presented here. For instance, numerous important people at one time or another have called for some sort of ban on private possession of any firearm–not just handguns. Darrell Gates, when he was chief of police in LA; Sen. Schumer…HCI and its successor have called for a ban on handguns, and have indicated that such a ban is a first step on the way to a “no-gun” society.
As far as a paucity of gun-control laws, compare today with pre-GCA 1968. In the old days, anybody could buy anything but a machine gun and the USPS would deliver it to your door. Now, no dealer can sell a gun without registering it. Handguns cannot be sold in interstate transfer except through a dealer–and even a gift within a family is subject to interstate control. Imported firearms of any sort are strictly controlled.
What people in the anti-gun loons’ world don’t seem to understand that the big gripe of the gunloons is not against rational controls. It is against laws which do not restrict criminals, but do restrict the already law-abiding. This is frustrating to us when you consider this attitude in the context of federal agents’ testimony and the testimony from people from some of the larger police forces during Congressional hearings: The vast majority of guns used by criminals are illegally obtained and possessed under laws in existence prior to the 1980s. The testimony is of some 85%.
The issue, then, becomes one of discommoding millions of people because of the “casual” source of 15% of all guns used in crime.
Ah, but controlling this other 15% is worth the discommoding, in order to save lives? Okay, fine. Let’s discommode every person, and the economy, and save tens of thousands more lives by instituting a 20mph national speed limit. Hey, if it will save just one life!
Best regards,
‘Rat
Let’s take a look at D’Rat’s comments. His first remark is to say that the gun control advocacy positions of HCI, Sen. Schumer, etc. are indications of the “first step” toward a total gun ban.
Nonsense. Produce the evidence. I could, with far greater evidence, show the NRA and GOA seek to arm white supremacist groups. After all, both organizations supported Randy Weaver and Larry Pratt has spoken several times to Christian Identity groups.
D’Rat’s second point is that FFLs now have to go through some paperwork. However, individuals on the secondary market are able to buy and sell most any type of firearm they want. So little has changed from the pre-GCA days. The fact remains that anyone–convicted felon, mental incompetent, terrorist–can get his or her hands on virtually any firearm with no oversight whatsoever save for a fistful of greenbacks.
I’d dispute D’Rat’s numbers regarding the sources of guns used by criminals. His numbers are from an NRA ‘talking point’ paper which interviewed a small number of inmates involved in gun-related crime. Even if we were to accept D’Rat’s figures as the gospel truth, it is largely a matter of semantics. Straw purchases and FFLs engaging in criminal transactions are illegal, but the gunloon groups make effective regulation of these sellers almost impossible.
IOW, the gunloons assert enforcement is all that is needed while throwing up every possible roadblock to enforcement possible. Why on earth would the NRA be proposing to make firearms accessible to convicted felons?
As for ‘discommoding’ gunowners–again, why would someone oppose demonstrating they can safely operate and maintain a firearm? Or that they’re mentally and physically capable of using a deadly weapon? Gunloons like to talk a big game when it comes to responsibility but their words are 180 degrees away from their actions.
Nice blog.
Restricting the length of knives is useless. The length of a knife has no effect whatsoever on a criminals actions, or on the damaging effects of the knife will have on the criminals victim.
The restriction of automatic and butterfly knives is ridiculous; easily influenced and misguided liberals in the 50s banned them after an onslaught of popular culture media portrayed in a negative way, like Westside story. The miniscule speed difference in opening makes the weapon no more potent than any other knife. A knife can be opened via a thumb stud at a slower but no less effective speed.
To restrict the sale, owning and carrying of firearms is equally ridiculous, because it disarms law abiding citizens, making them more easy targets for criminals. Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons. Someone who will kill or rob is unlikely to follow local weapon restrictions. In fact, crime rates are much lower in areas with more reasonable weapon laws, regions that allow their inhabitants self defense.
There is nothing wrong with hunting. Hunters have nothing against nature or animals, as liberals tend to think. In fact, hunters often have much greater understanding of nature, and support wildlife conservation in order to preserve their hunt.
Also, the things hunters hunt are not going to go extinct or die off because of hunting. In fact, some animals would overproduce, like whitetail deer, because most of their natural predators have been killed off long ago. Other game animals, like wild pigs or nutria, are non-native and have no natural predators, and in general make a nuisance of themselves. Imagine what would happen if no one hunted, like the liberals want.
Hey Chris,
Great post. I agree with everything you say except for your remark about “misguided” and “easily influenced” liberals.
I’m a liberal and a proud gun owner and gun-rights supporter. Putting the blame all on liberals drives my fellow liberal gun owners into the closet. It also lets anti-gun conservatives (like Alphonse D’Amato, who called for a ban on civilian ownership of handguns) off the hook for their disdain of the 2nd Amendment.
Those of us who support the right to keep and bear arms need to forget terms like liberal and conservative when it comes to gun ownership and put up a united front against those who would take our rights away.
Other than your conservative vs. liberal rhetoric, that’s a great post.
Hey Armed Liberal,
Great post on Jan. 26. It always amazes me the hysterical lengths anti-gunners go in their rhetoric.
Like you, I’m a firm slippery-slope believer, too. But I think the notion of the slippery slope extends far beyond the 2nd Amendment.
The sad truth is that both right-wingers and our fellow liberals are both equally guilty of imagining exceptions to the Constitution where none exist, and of ignoring those protections and provisions they don’t like.
If people can so easily dismiss the 2nd Amendment, then nothing in our Constitution is safe. We see that now in the erosion of our civil liberities, as all three branches of government ignore not only the 2nd Amendment, but all the others, usually as part of the ongoing wars against terrorism or drugs.
To those people, if you don’t like something in our Constitution, then CHANGE IT! But until it is changed, as far as I’m concerned, it is the law of the land.
I’m sorry if this offends the NRA, but a law-abiding citizen has no need whatsoever for an assault weapon for which another type of gun wouldn’t suffice.
You don’t need an AK-47 to hunt deer–a hunting rifle will do the job just as well. You don’t need an M-16 for self defense; a handgun or shotgun will do just fine.
Allowing these weapons will not make Americans safer. Not renewing the Assault Weapons Ban will just make it even easier for criminals to get their hands on them.
The real punch-line, however, is that one of the primary justifications for the Iraq war–which doesn’t really make any sense if you think about it–is that if we weren’t attacking the insurgents over there, their Kalashnikovs and RPGs would be used on our streets (in spite of the fact that most of the insurgents wouldn’t be fighting the United States at all if we weren’t over there). Meanwhile, President Bush and the NRA are helping gun companies put those very weapons on our streets by blocking the renewal of the ban.
Hey Raph,
I’m a law-abiding citizen, as are most of the people who own those weapons which you wish to ban. And guess what?! You have nothing to fear from any of us (at least as long as you’re not trying to break into our homes in the middle of the night).
If you go through the postings throughout this blog, you’ll find that lots of people are not worried about their right to keep “assault weapons” per se, but their right to keep any weapon. We’ve seen too often in this country the slippery slope that happens as soon as some weapon gets banned. It only makes the anti-gunners bolder and they try going for other weapons.
In NYC, not only can you not own an “assault weapon,” without an unconsitutionally rigorous and expensive permit, but you can’t own a simple handgun, a hunting rifle or shotgun. Hell, if you’re caught with mace, pepper spray or a stun gun in that city without a permit, you’ll find yourself in Rikers Island being traded for smokes so fast it’ll make your head spin.
Meanwhile, the bad guys don’t care what the law says. A criminal, by definition of the word, doesn’t care about the law. I remember when California passed its assault weapons registration law. I don’t recall seeing too many Crips, Bloods or other bad guys lining up to do the legal thing.
All that law did was make it difficult for the law-abiding to defend themselves from those bad guys. And please, don’t respond with some moronic remark that they should just call 911. The national average response time to a 911 call is 11 minutes. It only takes the bad guys a few seconds to fuck you up, with or without a gun.
Lastly, whether I own a weapon, or for that matter, whether I smoke pot, have relations with another man, elect to have an abortion (if I were female) or call Dr. Kervorkian if I decide to end it all, is not anyone’s business, especially the government’s business.
As long as a behavior is consensual, between adults, and does not harm the person or property of another, the government has not business getting involved.
My owning a gun doesn’t hurt you in the least. It is only those who misuse guns that deserve to be penalized, and severely.
Your attitude, of “let’s take their weapons away because it MIGHT be used against me,” is the same mentallity that Bush used to get us into that damned war in Iraq. Thanks to that mindset, Gulf War II is looking more like Vietnam II.
And BTW: I’m not a member of the NRA. I agree with their support of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I don’t agree with their tactics and their rhetoric. I especially take offense when they phrase the gun rights issue as conservative vs. liberal.
I’m a proud, pro-labor, pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-consumer, anti-drug war, anti-GATT, anti-WTO and anti-NAFTA liberal.
And I keep and bear weapons.