Gun Control Lobby, Thinking Small


PDA






Skeptic
December 28, 2005, 09:23 AM
Yet another "Get rid of all evil guns" article.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400329.html

Sunday, December 25, 2005; Page B07

Five years ago an elderly Los Angeles woman who had agreed to move out of her daughter's apartment bought a handgun. She cleared the background check, passed the safety test and practiced on targets at the local shooting range. Then she shot and killed her daughter and her daughter's fianc -- my brother David.

As someone who has lost a member of my family to gun violence, I see the new federal legislation to limit gun manufacturers' liability as unconscionable beyond my ken. But what troubles me most is that the gun control lobby is pouring its resources into battles that probably won't save many lives -- and we're losing even those.


In the past decade, states have passed law after law to require safety locks, force gun-purchase waiting periods, trace bullets back to their sources and allow victims to sue manufacturers for negligence. That such measures have produced at best slight decreases in the rate of gun deaths is hardly surprising. Only 3 percent of such deaths are accidents, since most murders are committed with legally purchased firearms by people who know how to use them safely. California has passed a raft of such laws in the past five years and is widely praised as one of the most progressive states on gun control. In that same period, the number of handgun-related homicides has fallen and then risen again, with no correlation whatever.

The real problem is not that handguns aren't safe or well-regulated enough, or that you can't sue and try to bankrupt a corrupt manufacturer after someone you love has been killed. The problem is that 65 million people in the United States own handguns. The gun used to kill my brother was a Glock 19, a light and portable semiautomatic. These guns are designed to kill people: That's their sole purpose. Nearly 12,000 Americans annually use guns to do just that, and the majority use handguns. Twelve thousand: that's comparable to the number of AIDS deaths each year in the United States. (Great Britain has about 100 gun deaths each year.)

And if the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which leads the gun control crusade, continues to assure us that it won't try to outlaw handguns? Then new laws to restrict who can buy guns and where they can carry them might reduce the annual toll to 10,000. But that's optimistic.

Wouldn't it make more sense to define the ultimate battle as one for a national ban on handguns -- the sole gun-control measure that promises to save tens of thousands of lives? With an endgame that can actually achieve the ultimate goal, perhaps we'd acquire the logical and moral authority to win more of the smaller battles.

I can hear the gun lobby scoffing, "Guns don't kill people. People do." This ditty is familiar to all of us. Yes, and bombs and chemical weapons don't kill people either, but they're not sold over the counter to just about anyone without a criminal record who can prove that he or she can use them safely.

Of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year, 160 are used in legitimate self-defense. Guns in the home are used seven times more often for murder than for self-defense. I cannot say whether the woman who shot my brother was vicious or insane: I myself no longer understand the exact difference. But we all know that rage, vengefulness and deep alienation are hardly unusual in our society, and a handgun makes it horrifyingly easy for people to express them, on purpose or on impulse, by killing people.

If the National Rifle Association wants to pour its own considerable resources into creating a society ruled by absolute peace and brotherhood, I'm all for it. But let's stop arming the populace in the meantime, which pro- and anti-gun advocates alike know for certain will create a mountainous death toll.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Control Lobby, Thinking Small" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Janitor
December 28, 2005, 09:42 AM
The problem is that 65 million people in the United States own handguns.
No. I'm sorry about this guys brother and all that - horrible stuff. But he's just so wrong at so many levels. His problems had NOTHING to do with 65 million people in the US owning guns. It had to do with a mentally disturbed mother in law. If she had poisened them, this guy would be ranting about letting rats run wild in the name of saving the children.

Of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year, 160 are used in legitimate self-defense. Guns in the home are used seven times more often for murder than for self-defense.
I don't remember the numbers as well as this guy seems to, but something like 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :rolleyes:
-

Flyboy
December 28, 2005, 11:14 AM
I'd like to know more about the case, myself. Perhaps this was a righteous shoot. We're certainly not going to hear that from the author of this piece.

El Tejon
December 28, 2005, 11:39 AM
Centuries ago my ancestors would prosecute the murder weapon. There was a trial and a ceremony for its destruction.

Today, we propose unconstitutional and illegal legislation. More things change, more they stay the same.

Tell us more about David's undoing. What happened? What is was the disposition of the case? Charges filed? Conviction or acquital or dismissal?

If David were run down with a car, would you call for a ban on motor vehicles. If David were killed with a knife? How about if he were killed with a Bible?

How are the gun bans of Chicago and Washington D.C. working? Peace and love in gun free New York City, Boston, or L.A.? The world would be a violence free petting zoo if only inert mechanical devices did not exist.

Old Fuff
December 28, 2005, 11:40 AM
We are all fortunate that this guy's brother wasn't run over by a car ... :rolleyes:

Frankly, I would be delighted if the Brady Bunch came out and publicly stated that a total handgun (or firearm) ban was what they wanted, (which is true, regardless of what they say). Such an admission would probably finish them off, give the political consequences of getting all of those gun owners really upset. He will find some support for his proposal among radical/leftwing Democrats, but not much elsewhere.

Of course we all know where the Washington Post stands on this issue... :barf:

El Tejon
December 28, 2005, 11:44 AM
You have to wonder if these people know what the world was like before firearms?

Sometimes I think they believe that the whole world sat around holding hands and skipping about picking flowers before guns were invented.:rolleyes:

Lupinus
December 28, 2005, 11:47 AM
So just to be fair if she had gotten in a car and run them down, this would call for the outlawing of cars right? Or if she stuck a steak knife into the guy...the banning of silverware?

Almost anything can kill, heck if I took the plastic water bottle sitting next to me right now and got creative I could kill you with it. Items are tools, drills knives forks guns, all tools nothing more nothing less. It isn't the tool that can kill someone it is the person. For everyone that goes leatherface and hacks someone up with a chainsaw there are thousands on top of thousands that use it in none criminal ways. For everyone who goes nuts and hops thier car onto the sidewalk and mows down a family thousands on top of thousands use it in a way that hurts no one. You don't ban the tool. You don't say someone has to jump through hoops so that they can't get the tool because a minority of people who get the tool use it for a criminal purpose. You catch the criminal, you try him, and you convict him plain and simple. You don't whine about the tool and how evil it is because a gun can kill someone no more easily though its criminal use then a car or a knife can.

MechAg94
December 28, 2005, 11:49 AM
Only 3 percent of such deaths are accidents, since most murders are committed with legally purchased firearms by people who know how to use them safely.
I seriously doubt that statement.

In general, it is not a good idea to take advise from people who are emotionally involved in the argument. It is unlikely that he is actually being rational on this issue. Personal involvement does not make you an expert. From the story he told the brother knew the mother in law had a gun and was learning to use it. If handguns were outlawed, what makes him think she would not have just bought a shotgun?

El Tejon
December 28, 2005, 11:54 AM
Lup, wierdest murder that I have seen: a shampoo bottle. Guy in Indiana Department of Correction killed another with a melted and twisted shampoo bottle.

Outlaw soap, for the children.:D

yonderway
December 28, 2005, 11:59 AM
The problem is that 65 million people in the United States own handguns.Of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year, 160 are used in legitimate self-defense.

So even if her numbers are right, 12,000 out of over 65,000,000 handguns (assuming only one per gun owner) are used to kill people every year.

Her own numbers (which don't make sense at all) don't support her arguments in the least.

So if 12,000 guns are used to kill people every year, how many of those are in the hands of police officers trying to do their jobs and not get killed themselves? More than 160 a year, I'd have to think...

kjeff50cal
December 28, 2005, 12:09 PM
Now tell the rest of the story.... the Bradys make their living on half truths.
"Five years ago an elderly Los Angeles woman who had agreed to move out of her daughter's apartment bought a handgun. She cleared the background check, passed the safety test and practiced on targets at the local shooting range. Then she shot and killed her daughter and her daughter's fianc -- my brother David." Brady Bunch Please tell the whole story.... no wait it may no longer suit their "aims". They re-"lie" on the knee jerk reactions (don't laugh it happened in Australia).

kjeff50cal

Henry Bowman
December 28, 2005, 12:17 PM
Of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year, This also assumes a different gun used for each homicide (justifiable or not). And implies a different killer for each person killed. Clearly, both are not correct, making the number of criminals and guns used for an illegal purpose significantly less than 12,000. (Although the 12,000 number is quite small, itself.)

TallPine
December 28, 2005, 12:32 PM
Of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year, 160 are used in legitimate self-defense.
The comparison of those numbers (the first is approximately correct; I have no idea on the second) assumes that one must kill a criminal attacker in order to have used a gun in sef-defense. :rolleyes:

0007
December 28, 2005, 02:23 PM
Not that it will matter to that self-proved idiot, but even several enemies of legitimate firearms owners have had to admit that the numbers for self-protection with firearms is somewhere in the middle 100,000's... Which means that if he will lie about that one thing he has probably lied about the rest of the story.

Luchtaine
December 28, 2005, 02:34 PM
Long pointy knives will come after firearms look at britain. Top chefs agree there is no reason to have a long pointy kitchen knife...

Cars will follow sometime there after.

oh yeah and a fun site to see what the world is comming to.
http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/

wolf
December 28, 2005, 03:27 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to define the ultimate battle as one for a national ban on handguns -- the sole gun-control measure that promises to save tens of thousands of lives? With an endgame that can actually achieve the ultimate goal, perhaps we'd acquire the logical and moral authority to win more of the smaller battles.

curious timing for this artical...five years after the fact...printed on christmas day..way to go los angeles times

a national ban..well lets see..seems they are off to a slow start..but the effort and energy is picking up..the san francisco gun ban will give the movement more energy..and the gun ban crazies in los angeles (jenny is a shining example..as is the LA Times) are revving up their engines for the 2006/08 push..LA is on the chopping block..just a matter of time...the stories of the 500+ constant homicide rate in the county..and homicide rates of 70+ in the crime filled city of compton..and just the local news punching up the local robbery/homicide stories..in which "gunmen" star..

you never hear of anyone called a "knifeman"..even though a recent early morning murder of two painters in beverly hills was committed with a knife..

just watching the mayor of LA (former ACLU chapter leader) looking for a chance to make it part of the improvement plan for LA

wolf

R.H. Lee
December 28, 2005, 03:38 PM
There's nothing wrong with gun violence, as long as the right people are the recipients.

jacobtowne
December 28, 2005, 03:44 PM
"Gun Control Lobby, Thinking Small"

"Gun control" and "thought" are a contradiction in terms.
JT

Hollowdweller
December 28, 2005, 03:45 PM
12,000 out of over 200 million for the freedom of being able to own guns doesn't seem too bad to me. Of course it would be nice if it was zero, but if we are talking numbers I'm betting banning alcohol and sterilizing anyone with an IQ of 70 or below would further to reducing the violent homicide rate than gun control.

Standing Wolf
December 28, 2005, 07:59 PM
Stalin would have approved of such "logic" whole-heartedly.

Langenator
December 29, 2005, 01:16 AM
I'm not sure if the author realizes it, but right in the middle of it all he basically admits that gun control doesn't work:

California has passed a raft of such laws in the past five years and is widely praised as one of the most progressive states on gun control. In that same period, the number of handgun-related homicides has fallen and then risen again, with no correlation whatever.

And I'm sure he meant to say "repressive" instead of "progressive."

Bartholomew Roberts
December 29, 2005, 01:20 AM
Only 3 percent of such deaths are accidents, since most murders are committed with legally purchased firearms by people who know how to use them safely.

Demonstrably false. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html)

RaggedClaws
December 29, 2005, 10:18 AM
Sorry to intrude on this discussion, but I just want to point out that the author is a woman, Jenny Price. A few posts have referred to her as a "he"...

She's obviously had a seriously bad experience with firearms, so we should take that into account. She's very upfront about that. The article is filled with lies and conceits though, very poor journalism.

Molon Labe
December 29, 2005, 12:02 PM
The problem is that 65 million people in the United States own handguns.Agree. We need more gun owners.

armoredman
December 29, 2005, 12:28 PM
El tejon, I know of inmates who collected the plastic baggies that came in thier luch sack's then melted them with a "stinger", putting the melted plastic in a form made of wet newspaper, and sharpening the resulting crude knife on the cell floor. Nothing like a metal detector proof shank.
The other thing I see is she states no one sells explosives or chemical weapons over the counter - she doesn't buy gasoline or rat poison, I take it? There are more deadly chemicals in WalMart than you can shake a stick at - looked at pool supplies?
Oh, well, some people you just can't reach. Stay in Cali, lady.

Lupinus
December 29, 2005, 12:36 PM
There are more deadly chemicals in WalMart than you can shake a stick at - looked at pool supplies?
Of the laundry isle....theres a reason you aren't supposed to mix bleech and ammonia ;)

Mongo the Mutterer
December 29, 2005, 12:54 PM
Sorry to intrude on this discussion, but I just want to point out that the author is a woman, Jenny Price. A few posts have referred to her as a "he"...

She's obviously had a seriously bad experience with firearms, so we should take that into account. She's very upfront about that. The article is filled with lies and conceits though, very poor journalism.Always like to research authors of drivel like this. Googled "Jenny Price" in LA/writer, etc.

Only person I could come up with was a whacked out lefty who seems to have several "causes" she promotes.. HMMM. Never wrote about her "loss" before??? BS antenna is twitching....

ClicStic
December 29, 2005, 01:08 PM
I had the misfortune to read this article in the WaPo on Sunday. http://www.thehighroad.org/images/smilies/angryfire.gif

I'm sorry for the author's loss, but it's clear from the article that guns had nothing to do with it.

First of all, the incident took place in one of the most highly regulated firearms markets in the US. If what happened to her brother and his fiance wasn't pre-meditated murder, nothing is. Lacking a firearms, the murderer would have likely just run the victims over.

Others have questioned where the author's numbers came from. Well, it's fairly obvious that they're from the usual suspect sources: The Brady Center, etc. and carry along with them all manner of hidden assumptions.

First, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were 16,137 murders and non-negligent homicides in 2004, which puts the US murder rate at 5.5 per 100K, or at a level so low that the murder rate hasn't been lower since 1965 -- long before the GCA of 1968 and all that followed at the Federal and State level. Since 77.9% of 70.3% of 2004's murders were committed with handguns, about 1/100 of 1% of 65 million handgun owners committed a murder in 2004 with a handgun.

Jenny Price opines: "Wouldn't it make more sense to define the ultimate battle as one for a national ban on handguns -- the sole gun-control measure that promises to save tens of thousands of lives? With an endgame that can actually achieve the ultimate goal, perhaps we'd acquire the logical and moral authority to win more of the smaller battles."

To this I would reply that it make no sense whatsoever. All I ever hear from the gun-ban promoters is a "promise" of lives saved. After the fall of the Soviet Union honest statistics about the murder rate in the FSU became available. The FSU has a murder rate 4 times as high as in the USA and one of the most restrictive sets of gun control laws in the world. And the comparisons don't end there. It's clear that social factors give us the murder rate we have and that gun control does nothing except steal a natural right of self defense from the law-abiding.

Keep the Faith

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Control Lobby, Thinking Small" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!