Opinion piece from Dr. John Lott in the Wall Street Journal

Status
Not open for further replies.
hso

hso

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
65,951
Location
0 hrs east of TN
Dr. Lott has a been a pro 2A researcher for decades bringing light into the smoke and mirror world of the Anti 2A propaganda machine. Seeing an opinion piece in the WSJ by him is refreshing.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/Democrats-are-coming-for-your-guns-11601938911?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

Dr. John Lott has a new piece at the Wall Street Journal.

When President Trump introduced Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, he warned: “The coming years will decide the survival of our Second Amendment.” He’s right.

Joe Biden’s campaign website contains a long list of gun-control proposals: national gun licensing; red-flag laws, which let judges seize guns without a hearing or mental-health evaluation; and bans on semiautomatic guns that look like military weapons.

First on Mr. Biden’s list, however, is a proposal to make gun manufacturers civilly liable for misuse of guns they sell. This means people could sue manufacturers and sellers whenever a crime, accident or suicide occurs with a gun. The straightforward result would be to put gun makers out of business.Imagine what would happen to the car industry if similar rules applied. The National Safety Council estimates that 39,404 Americans died and 4.5 million were injured from car accidents in 2018. Cars are also used frequently to commit crimes.

Note that cases of product malfunction are already covered; to run afoul of Mr. Biden’s proposed rule, product makers need not do anything wrong at all. Car accidents often occur when a driver isn’t paying attention or drives recklessly, perhaps under the influence. It would be ludicrous to make car makers pay lost wages, medical costs and pain and suffering because of a driver’s negligence.

Guns aren’t so different. Less than 1% of guns are ever used in crimes, suicides or accidents, and when they are, it’s virtually always the result of the user’s actions. Many other products, such as motorcycles, have much higher probabilities of causing harm. The death rate per motorcycle is 0.05%; the date rate for guns is 0.008%. The latter includes murder, accidental deaths and suicides. Guns are also used defensively about two million times in the average year. Will government reward gun makers when their products are used to save lives?

Gun-control advocates sometimes claim that gun makers cater to the criminal market with low prices and easy concealability. This doesn’t pass muster. Lightweight, compact firearms make life easier for the 19.48 million Americans who carry concealed handguns, and women generally prefer smaller, lightweight guns.

My research finds increases in gun ownership are associated with drops in crime, not rises. Poor people in the areas with the highest crime rates benefit the most from owning guns, according to my studies. But gun-maker liability would be sure to make guns unaffordable for them. Police also believe gun ownership helps to combat crime: When PoliceOne surveyed its members in 2013, around 76% answered that legally armed citizens are very or extremely important in reducing crime.
Click to expand...

https://crimeresearch.org/2020/10/a...s-liable-for-gun-crimes-hurts-the-vulnerable/
 
Last edited:
Can't read unless I subscribe. That ain't gonna happen.

Won't be Joe Biden and the Democrats coming for your guns, nor will it be the strong antis. It will be the majority of Americans that don't own a firearm, if and when they see fit. Right now the sentiment is strong to keep things the way they are. No new gun restrictions and the keeping of the old ones. Look at Obama's two terms. While Republicans ranted the same rhetoric about him taking our guns, he actually did more for responsible gun ownership than Trump has.

Remember, it's "we the people".........
 
Here's the first part of the WSJ article.
When President Trump introduced Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, he warned: “The coming years will decide the survival of our Second Amendment.” He’s right.
Joe Biden’s campaign website contains a long list of gun-control proposals: national gun licensing; red-flag laws, which let judges seize guns without a hearing or mental-health evaluation; and bans on semiautomatic guns that look like military weapons.
First on Mr. Biden’s list, however, is a proposal to make gun manufacturers civilly liable for misuse of guns they sell. This means people could sue manufacturers and sellers whenever a crime, accident or suicide occurs with a gun. The straightforward result would be to put gun makers out of business.
Imagine what would happen to the car industry if similar rules applied. The National Safety Council estimates that 39,404 Americans died and 4.5 million were injured from car accidents in 2018. Cars are also used frequently to commit crimes.
Click to expand...
The second link is the same article.
 
buck460XVR said:
Can't read unless I subscribe. That ain't gonna happen.

Won't be Joe Biden and the Democrats coming for your guns, nor will it be the strong antis. It will be the majority of Americans that don't own a firearm, if and when they see fit. Right now the sentiment is strong to keep things the way they are. No new gun restrictions and the keeping of the old ones. Look at Obama's two terms. While Republicans ranted the same rhetoric about him taking our guns, he actually did more for responsible gun ownership than Trump has.

Remember, it's "we the people".........
Click to expand...

I found this part to be the most revealing:

upload_2020-10-17_22-8-39.png
 
buck460XVR said:
Remember, it's "we the people".........
Click to expand...
Exactly. The reason that antigun planks are in the Democrats' platform is that they believe the antigun stance will win them more votes than it will lose them. As gun owners, we have a serious problem that transcends the posturing of politicians. We need to try to change the attitude of our fellow citizens. I'm not sure how we go about doing that.
 
AlexanderA said:
Exactly. The reason that antigun planks are in the Democrats' platform is that they believe the antigun stance will win them more votes than it will lose them. As gun owners, we have a serious problem that transcends the posturing of politicians. We need to try to change the attitude of our fellow citizens. I'm not sure how we go about doing that.
Click to expand...

The royal we, idunno.

But be responsible. Offer to take folks shooting. Just be cool and personable. It's a good time since so many new gun owners have purchased firearms due to covid or social unrest concerns. (once ammo comes back that is!)

I think a lot of anti gun people have never actually been around guns much at all, most likely never fired one. Or they had a negative firearms experience.

A couple have refused the range offer politely, but many more have gone just from the relationship previously established.

One especially anti gun lady has since gone as far as starting her own LGBT gun rights group and shooting community. I think that's great.

So yeah, just try to reach across the aisle folks, be the change you wanna see and all that.

Treating others for way you want to be treated would solve about all the issues in society today. I've found more takers than passers when it comes to the offer of some free range time (and some light safety instruction of course).

If worried about cost, grab a 22 semi and revolver. Had luck with an sr22 in the past.
 
buck460XVR said:
Can't read unless I subscribe. That ain't gonna happen.

Won't be Joe Biden and the Democrats coming for your guns, nor will it be the strong antis. It will be the majority of Americans that don't own a firearm, if and when they see fit. Right now the sentiment is strong to keep things the way they are. No new gun restrictions and the keeping of the old ones. Look at Obama's two terms. While Republicans ranted the same rhetoric about him taking our guns, he actually did more for responsible gun ownership than Trump has.

Remember, it's "we the people".........
Click to expand...
Please explain how the unarmed take away the guns of the armed. Particularly the "if and when they see fit" part.
Then a detailed explanation of your last two sentences please.
 
IMHO It is the criminal and the news that sways a lot of public opinion on gun control. You all know the rest of the story on this.
 
SharpDog said:
I found this part to be the most revealing:

View attachment 949574
Click to expand...
One suspects part of the plan is requiring gun owners to have insurance, in the manner of automobile insurance. Next, special taxes (already a fact in a couple of our cities up here) on ammunition and firearms, more "administrative" fees (like the DROS fees in California, only running into the hundreds of dollars per firearm) -- a lot of this can be done in a regulatory fashion, avoiding legislation. But, if the Dems take the Senate -- and they probably will -- there will be legislation, and the goal will be to legislate firearms ownership out of existence by pricing purchasing and owning (imagine paying annual taxes on your guns, just like vehicle registration and property taxes) firearms out of the realm of ordinary citizens.
 
AlexanderA said:
Exactly. The reason that antigun planks are in the Democrats' platform is that they believe the antigun stance will win them more votes than it will lose them.
Click to expand...
I really think it has more do with money. The anti-gun people have almost unlimited sums. For Michael Bloomberg to spend a billion dollars on buying politicans their seats in Congress is just a tiny fraction of his net worth.
 
I do not think their is a time in history when Politicians have been preaching using false pandering to a uneducated public to secure votes. I think the greatest danger lies in the belief that Kamala Harris would become President. She loves theatrics more than fact and in a effort to appease voters she will go strong on taking away all firearms and bring hardships to Firearm manufacturers. She is void of knowledge on all matters to the Important Global issues and national issues that face our country. And because of this she attempts to make up for this lack of knowledge with a false persona of being strong and again use childish stories that have no meaning other than to appeal to a ignorant base. Blind leading the Blind with a vengeance. A crusader leading off to a war that does not exist all in order to serve self.

 
kidneyboy said:
Please explain how the unarmed take away the guns of the armed. Particularly the "if and when they see fit" part.
Then a detailed explanation of your last two sentences please.
Click to expand...

Simple. Only about 30% of folks in America actually own a gun. That leaves around 70% that don't. That makes us gun owners a minority. Out of that 70%, there is another minority that are hard core antis. The remainder, the majority of Americans, are pretty much neutral. While they don't own a gun, they don't mind that others do. They are the ones that are most influenced by the news of violence using guns, accidental shootings and just plain old everyday irresponsible gun ownership. They are why there is such a "every which way the wind blows" sentiment about gun ownership and the laws regulating gun ownership. They are the ones we need to keep on our side. All of this chest beating and screams of "shall not be infringed!" on gun forums is pretty much useless in this respect, i.e., it's just preaching to the choir. If the sentiment that majority has, changes negatively towards gun ownership and is added to the minority of hard core antis....we don't have a chance. This is not rocket science, and any supporter of the RKBA needs to understand how fragile and complicated this relationship is. According to the same source as the linked article(The WSJ) 89% of Americans support stricter and expanded background checks for the purchase of firearms. This tells me that over half of those folks that already own guns.....also support stricter background checks..

Last two sentences?

Next to last...... Research shows that only two gun laws passed during Obama's two terms and those did nothing to restrict gun ownership, but actually expanded the rights of gun owners here in the U.S. Trump on the other hand, supported and signed into law, the banning of bump stocks, a restriction on responsible gun ownership.

Last.....as far as I know, it is still "We the People" that control the country, by our opinions, by expressing our opinions and using our right to vote to elect folks to represent those same opinions. Not much to explain there.
 
kidneyboy said:
Please explain how the unarmed take away the guns of the armed. Particularly the "if and when they see fit" part.
Then a detailed explanation of your last two sentences please.
Click to expand...

The unarmed vote in politicians who promise to ban guns. Those politicians win. They enact laws to ban and confiscate guns ("bingo! If you have an AR or AK, we're coming for them!) . Then they send out ATF, U.S. Marshals, FBI counterterrorism taskforce, to do the taking if the peons/myrmidons don't turn them in.


That's how.

Edit: see post immediately above this (#15). That's part of the process too.
 
Old Dog said:
But, if the Dems take the Senate -- and they probably will -- there will be legislation, and the goal will be to legislate firearms ownership out of existence by pricing purchasing and owning (imagine paying annual taxes on your guns, just like vehicle registration and property taxes) firearms out of the realm of ordinary citizens.
Click to expand...
I've said this before and I'll say it again -- if the Democrats take the Senate, they'll have an organizational majority but not an antigun majority. Antigun stances are not popular in the marginal "purple" states that they have to carry in order to achieve their Senate majority.

There's not a chance that a gun confiscation bill would pass the Senate, whether under Democratic control or not.
 
Oh, but I'm not talking about gun confiscation. The Democrats have been closely watching states such as Virginia, Oregon, Washington, and they are most certainly looking at further regulations that will impact -- and infringe -- upon the rights of everyone to keep and bear arms. The plans have already been drawn up and tested; it's simply cooking the frog on a slow boil.

Have you even bothered to read Biden's platform?
 
Old Dog said:
Have you even bothered to read Biden's platform?
Click to expand...
Indeed. The main thing that worries me is a new AWB. He's taking a two-pronged approach -- a halt to new production, and registration of existing weapons under the NFA (or purchase by the government). (Incidentally, initial NFA registration -- after a law change -- has historically been free. So much for the allegation that there would be a $200 tax on all semiautomatics.)

The practical difficulties of registering millions of semiautomatics under an already overburdened NFA system would become clear soon enough, and this proposal would be dropped like a hot potato. I have to classify this as campaign rhetoric and nothing more.

That brings us, basically, to a renewal of the 1994-2004 AWB. We lived through that once, and we can live through it again -- with the difference being that there are a lot more AWs out there now. With the current stockpiling of lower receivers, it would be a long time before we saw a significant effect on the market.
 
The main problem with an NFA excise tax is not the amount - $200 would never fly - but the real problem is that is involves the IRS in a firearm regulatory situation. That is not the IRS's mandate, and if they got the power to tax all firearms they would have the same authority they have now over non-payment or non-compliance on income taxes. Just imagine waking up some morning to find all your financial accounts frozen, your debit and credit cards not working, a lien on your property, and your wages attached. All because you didn't pay the excise tax on some old gun in the back of your safe you forgot you had. Extreme scenario, yes, but possible.
 
AlexanderA said:
I've said this before and I'll say it again -- if the Democrats take the Senate, they'll have an organizational majority but not an antigun majority. Antigun stances are not popular in the marginal "purple" states that they have to carry in order to achieve their Senate majority.

There's not a chance that a gun confiscation bill would pass the Senate, whether under Democratic control or not.
Click to expand...


Never say never. New Democrats have very little power and those who do, like Pelosi and Feinstein, twist arms very hard to get newbies to fall in line.

Just sayin' .....
 
wiscoaster said:
The main problem with an NFA excise tax is not the amount - $200 would never fly - but the real problem is that is involves the IRS in a firearm regulatory situation. That is not the IRS's mandate, and if they got the power to tax all firearms they would have the same authority they have now over non-payment or non-compliance on income taxes. Just imagine waking up some morning to find all your financial accounts frozen, your debit and credit cards not working, a lien on your property, and your wages attached. All because you didn't pay the excise tax on some old gun in the back of your safe you forgot you had. Extreme scenario, yes, but possible.
Click to expand...

Unless it is done differently I believe it is done by the BATF, not the IRS.

As far as the .gov. freezing your accounts, don't kid yourself; they can do THAT right now. The more we go away from checks and cash over to computer/Internet transfers, the more vulnerable we become to this.
 
Go back and look at SharpDog's post. Every manufacturer in the United States has a vested interested in seeing the gun manufacturing industry protected. If someone uses a widget criminally you think the widget maker wants to be on the hook civilly?
 
buck460XVR said:
Trump on the other hand, supported and signed into law,
Click to expand...
There was, to my information, knowledge, and/or belief, no "law" involved. This did not go before Congress and get submitted as a Bill. The bureau, ATFE, simply enlarged an existing Regulation. The belief that a Law was debated, sent to conference and put upon the president's desk persists despite. It's accepted canon by NeverTrumpers.

AlexanderA said:
We lived through that once, and we can live through it again -- with the difference being
Click to expand...
The difference being that they will not allow a sunset provision to be inserted. They--as has been repeatedly reported--intend to also make sure that no "workarounds" will be allowed. And they have a number of State AWB to examine to find the best approach.

Tommygunn said:
Unless it is done differently I believe it is done by the BATF, not the IRS.
Click to expand...
That is correct, IRS was the original controlling organization, hence the presence of Alcohol and Tobacco in the name of the Tax collecting and enforcement agency. "ATF" moved to Justice in the 70s or 80s. The "E" was added after Waco in the 90s. What role the agency plays in the collection of alcohol or tobacco taxes is not clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Interview with John Lott
Replies
0
Views
352
myrockfight
M
M
  • Locked
Heard John Lott speak today on campus
Replies
12
Views
953
DorGunR
D
W
  • Locked
John Lott Speaks: U.N. vs. Guns
Replies
9
Views
889
Bigjake
B
HighRoadRover
  • Locked
Firing Back at Jim Crow - Editorial by the Wall Street Journal
2 3
Replies
62
Views
3K
rust collector
R
P
  • Locked
John Lott on athletes and guns
Replies
3
Views
634
XLMiguel
X
Back
Top