"Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby" - Forbes Magazine


PDA






ezkl2230
February 22, 2012, 04:18 PM
This article, written by Larry Bell for Forbes Magazine, is a MUST READ for all Second Amendment supporters. I am sending it to my legislators!

"As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized....In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/

If you enjoyed reading about ""Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby" - Forbes Magazine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Carl N. Brown
February 22, 2012, 07:15 PM
What leapt out at me was this quote from Dennis Henigan, president, Brady Campaign, in Reuters:
Really it is a national disgrace that the only piece of gun-related legislation to come to a vote since Tucson was this legislation that would have enabled dangerous concealed carriers like Jared Loughner to carry their guns across state lines.

Loughner carried without a permit in violation of Section 13-3102 of Arizona law which criminalizes the concealed carry of a handgun with the intent to commit a crime. Since he did not have a permit and violated laws against murder and concealed carry to commit crime, Brady Campaign would have us believe that a law requiring states to recognize a valid out-of-state permit would enable someone like Loughner, and apparently believe that not recognizing nonresident permits would stop someone like Loughner. If he's willing to commit murder and carry illegally, he's willing to carry illegal across state lines whether states recognize nonresident permits or not.

War Squirrel
February 22, 2012, 07:30 PM
That was a fantastic read, thanks. I really liked the statistical info that this guy put together.

Shear_stress
February 22, 2012, 07:47 PM
What leapt out at me was this quote from Dennis Henigan, president, Brady Campaign, in Reuters:

Same here. The article's only real flaw was a lack of refutation for what was, for lack of a better word, Henigan's lie. Left without logic or statistics on their side--essentially, left without a legitimate public safety mandate--it's always amusing to see the rhetorical lengths anti-gun activists will go to to justify their existence as they shuffle down the road to irrelevance.

Carl N. Brown
February 22, 2012, 07:56 PM
The big diff in results between surveys like Kleck & Gertz National Self Defense Survey (NSDS) (2.4 million defensive gun uses (DGU)) and surveys like National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) (108 thousand DGU) is that all NSDS respondents were asked if they had used a gun defensively, while according to Cook & Ludwig "Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question" because of filtering questions (eg, "Have you been a victim of a crime?") In the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms (NSPOF) 6 of 19 people who successfully defended themselves did not think of themselves as "victims".

ezkl2230
February 22, 2012, 09:15 PM
In the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms (NSPOF) 6 of 19 people who successfully defended themselves did not think of themselves as "victims".

Very astute observation. 32% of those who defended themselves refused to classify themselves as victims. Given the widespread acceptance of the victim mentality in our population at-large, I wonder how this percentage compares with the overall percentage of the populace who embrace the victim mentality. If what I suspect is true (and I doubt there are any actual numbers to prove otherwise), then it would appear that firearms owners have a stronger, healthier view of themselves than the vast majority of the population.

ezkl2230
February 22, 2012, 09:19 PM
Loughner carried without a permit in violation of Section 13-3102 of Arizona law which criminalizes the concealed carry of a handgun with the intent to commit a crime. Since he did not have a permit and violated laws against murder and concealed carry to commit crime, Brady Campaign would have us believe that a law requiring states to recognize a valid out-of-state permit would enable someone like Loughner, and apparently believe that not recognizing nonresident permits would stop someone like Loughner. If he's willing to commit murder and carry illegally, he's willing to carry illegal across state lines whether states recognize nonresident permits or not.

Carl's response reminds me of the report published by the Cato Institute in 2000 that made the following observation:

...The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.
False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal. (emphasis added)

Jim K
February 22, 2012, 09:20 PM
The gun ban gang often comes out with what amounts to "We hope that some sicko will get a gun and kill a bunch of people so we can get a law passed".

I wonder if they have ever said, "We will find a sicko and give him a gun so he will kill a bunch of people and we can get a law passed."

Jim

JoeMal
February 22, 2012, 09:21 PM
Interesting read...thanks for posting.

rajb123
May 1, 2012, 01:53 PM
I was interested by the statistics on the numbers of background checks made by FFLs to the federal government for gun sales.

I thought the Clinton law that created the system for background checks specifically precluded the feds from gathering and maintaining a data base (electronic or otherwise) with information that has been gathered from this process.

Is this another example of willful disregard by the feds of our laws?

JRH6856
May 1, 2012, 02:33 PM
There is a big difference in recording the number of check made and recording and storing data about who was checked.

Rail Driver
May 1, 2012, 05:00 PM
What's shocking is that people believe that the government really doesn't already do these things anyway.

rls303
May 1, 2012, 05:20 PM
now if cnn msbc would only read !!! Life would be Good !!

If you enjoyed reading about ""Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby" - Forbes Magazine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!