porkchop Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Mountain of evidence shows gun control doesn't work January 8, 2005 BY JOHN R. LOTT JR. Last month, the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun control laws. The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of the decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let's study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want). The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. From the assault weapons ban to the Brady Act to one-gun-a-month restrictions to gun locks, nothing worked. The study was not the work of gun-control opponents. The panel was set up during the Clinton administration, and all but one of its members (whose views on guns were publicly known before their appointments) favored gun control. It's bad enough that the panel backed away from its own survey and empirical work; worse yet, it didn't really look objectively at all the evidence. If it had, it would have found not just that gun control doesn't help solve the problems of crime, suicide and gun accidents, but that it may actually be counterproductive. The panel simply ignored many studies showing just that. For example, the research on gun locks that the panel considered examined only whether accidental gun deaths and suicides were prevented. There was no mention of research that shows that locking up guns prevents people from using them defensively. The panel also ignored most of the studies that find a benefit in crime reduction from right-to-carry laws. It did pay attention to some non-peer reviewed papers on the right-to-carry issue, and it also noted one part of a right-to-carry study that indicated little or no benefit from such laws. What the panel didn't point out, however, is that the authors of that particular study had concluded that data in their work did much more to show there were benefits than to debunk it. James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy at UCLA, was the one dissenting panelist and the only member whose views were known in advance not to be entirely pro-gun control. His dissent focused on the right-to-carry issue, and the fact that emphasizing results that could not withstand peer-reviewed studies called into question the panel's contention that right-to-carry laws had not for sure had a positive effect. Wilson also said that conclusion was inaccurate given that ''virtually every reanalysis done by the committee'' confirmed right-to-carry laws reduced crime. He found the committee's only results that didn't confirm the drop in crime ''quite puzzling.'' They accounted for ''no control variables'' -- nothing on any of the social, demographic and public policies that might affect crime -- and he didn't understand how evidence that wouldn't get published in a peer-reviewed journal would be given such weight. While more research is always helpful, the notion that we have learned nothing flies in the face of common sense. The National Academy of Sciences panel should have concluded as the existing research has: Gun control doesn't help. Instead, the panel has left us with two choices. Either academia and the government have wasted tens of millions of dollars and countless man-hours on useless research (and the panel would like us to spend more in the same worthless pursuit), or the National Academy is so completely unable to separate politics from its analyses that it simply can't accept the results for what they are. In either case, the academy, and academics in general, have succeeded mostly in shooting themselves in the foot. John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Yesterday I bought a Winchester 375 H&H, so when a cape buffalo tries to charge my house, in the middle of the night, I can stop it dead in its tracks Cool gun, catridge is as big as my finger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TribalChief Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 A gun is very necessary in the Seattle area. There are rabid squirrells EVERYWHERE. How else would a guy defend himself?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 It does a number on squirrels. One planet... one gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super-pave Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 They're at it again. Banned the fifties in CA last week. Fifty black powder is next, then all big bores. Always wanted to make a pnuematic, hammer driven "golf ball gun" with pressure settings like "stun" and beyond. It would take decades to register all the Titleist and Maxflis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monsters4r Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 gun control totally works. you can hit targets much better when you use both hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porkchop Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 They're at it again. Banned the fifties in CA last week. Fifty black powder is next, then all big bores. Always wanted to make a pnuematic, hammer driven "golf ball gun" with pressure settings like "stun" and beyond. It would take decades to register all the Titleist and Maxflis. Here is an old article on the 50 Cal issue. You can thank your Bitch Senator Feinstein for this useless piece of legislation. Has nothing to do with the big cal guns. Just politics. The dickhead Blagovich is now our Governor. Already wants to run for President. Fuck 'em! :veryangry: Speaking of fifties............ Where has Alaskanassasin been? Goldilocks Gun Control By Timothy Wheeler, M.D. Posted October 31, 2000 Print version ----- Once upon a time, a congressman learned about .50 caliber target rifles. "Those guns are too big!" the congressman said, and so he introduced a bill in the Congress to outlaw them. But soon he found out that some people owned tiny little guns. "Those guns are too small!" the lawmaker warned, and he introduced another bill to outlaw them, too. At this writing, Rep. Rod Blagojevich from Chicago, unlike Goldilocks with her porridge, has not found a gun that he considers just right. Discriminating observers of political flimflammery would deduce correctly that he doesn't like any guns and would ban them all if he could. Rep. Blagojevich and his coauthor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, chose their buzzwords carefully. Their "Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act" is crafted to portray .50 caliber target shooters as "terrorists, doomsday cultists, and criminals," in the words of Sen. Feinstein. In reality, owners of these big guns are the exact opposite of the villains that Feinstein and Blagojevich want us to believe they are. Most are like John Burtt, a retired police officer with the demeanor of a Sunday school teacher. As spokesman for the Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute, Burtt has the task of undoing the legislators' hatchet job on the sport of .50-caliber target shooting. In testimony before Congress he revealed the truth: the typical fan of this arcane sport has the demographic profile of…a golfer. The average .50-caliber enthusiast is a successful businessman with an annual income of $50,000 or more. Of the 2,600 members of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association, at least 75 are physicians. A group of civilian experts on .50 caliber technology, the association freely shares its research findings with law enforcement and military authorities. Weighing in at 30 pounds and sporting a 29-inch barrel, the .50 caliber rifle is not exactly the weapon of convenience for street criminals. Contrary to claims from Blagojevich, there is only one known instance of a crime being committed with a .50 caliber gun. It turns out that most .50 caliber target shooters are the kind of people we would want as neighbors. When Blagojevich's House colleagues learned the truth about "military sniper weapons" his bill screeched to a halt. Undaunted by his failure to demonize big gun sport shooters, Blagojevich now is going after the owners of small handguns. His latest bill has the ridiculous title of the "Pocket Rocket Elimination Act." The congressman wants to send to prison for five years anyone who owns "the easily concealable pistols known" — only to Blagojevich and his staff — "as pocket rockets." Rep. Blagojevich defines a "pocket rocket" as any handgun that can hold two or more rounds of ammunition and measures less than seven and a half inches long. But how would anyone unfamiliar with firearms know that his arbitrary definition encompasses many high quality firearms carried by police and used by civilians for nearly a century? How many voters would know that Rep. Blagojevich's seemingly good-faith effort to stop crime is in fact an outrageous deception? From assault weapons to trigger locks, from sniper rifles to "pocket rockets," the inflammatory rhetoric of gun control advocates teaches us little. But it grievously harms innocent gun owners in the court of public opinion. That, of course, is the goal of gun control advocates. But not all efforts to ban guns are characterized by the crude mendacity of the Blagojevich bills. The more sophisticated variety of gun controller calls for "common sense" measures, such as photo licensing of handgun owners. Often, this line is prefaced with a solemn oath that the right of hunters and sportsmen to pursue their hobbies will not be infringed. But from the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans this summer came a stunning declaration from the Clinton-Gore administration. It bluntly contradicts this promise to hunters and sportsmen. U.S. Attorney William Mateja laid out the White House's position: the constitution does not guarantee an individual right to own a gun, and in fact allows the federal government to "take guns away from the public." So there you have it. All heirs of the great American tradition of firearm ownership, you are on notice. For if Americans give up their right to own firearms they will become a nation of subjects, not citizens. And that's the kind of America that liberal politicians think would be just right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firebird77clone Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 All i can say to that is.. DUUUHHH-UHHHH...! Wake up people. Gun 'rights' have been lost. Probably 30-40 years ago. Gun control is the ability to hit your target. The liberals use the term to criminalize weapons, PERIOD. So, just jump on board with the UN, and the EU. Give up your weaons and prepare to bend over for the one world order. Ya may as well, 'cause you're too lazy to drop what your'e doing, and march on the white house lawn! Any historian worth his salt can clearly prove the second ammendment was an INDIVIDUAL right. But, we'll just go about our daily routine, while the people we voted into office continue to take away our 'rights'. Go figure. :uhoh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_ikonboard Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Seattle aint as pretty as you guys make it! Go down into the city , or up on hill , then tell me how innocent the squirrels are! Lots of killings down there for no reason! Besides that not even the issue! Take away one take away them all! Then what, only the cops and criminals will have access to them, which would you rather have ? How long does it take for the cops to come to the rescue calling 911? You know what cracks me up the most is that the liberals trounce on the gun laws , "we need to take every gun off the street" , you cant take every Coca-Cola off the street how the hell can you take every gun off the street! But whats really funny is that fact that they dont want guns in the hands of law abiding citizens , they want the cops to have them , the same group of people the liberals whine about everyday for police brutality ! Fuck, make up your minds! Come and try to get my weapons !!! I'm gonna paint my house red , if ya come, you can bank on that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanChief Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Seattle aint as pretty as you guys make it! Go down into the city , or up on hill , then tell me how innocent the squirrels are! Lots of killings down there for no reason! Besides that not even the issue! Take away one take away them all! Then what, only the cops and criminals will have access to them, which would you rather have ? How long does it take for the cops to come to the rescue calling 911? You know what cracks me up the most is that the liberals trounce on the gun laws , "we need to take every gun off the street" , you cant take every Coca-Cola off the street how the hell can you take every gun off the street! But whats really funny is that fact that they dont want guns in the hands of law abiding citizens , they want the cops to have them , the same group of people the liberals whine about everyday for police brutality ! Fuck, make up your minds! Come and try to get my weapons !!! I'm gonna paint my house red , if ya come, you can bank on that! I agree with you, amigo. I know a few cops and although they're nice enough guys, I feel more confident in myself than I do in theirs. fact is, California government is about as intrusive as it gets. I love California, but it's so friggin socialist that I'm seriously contemplating moving. the only thing that keeps me here is my business and the weather. I'm the same way, though. I will make a stand if they come for what is constitutionally mine. :veryangry: Bring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The gun control that does work: 1) Sight Alignment 2) Sight Picture 3) Breath Control The Results CAUTION!! GRAPHIC IMAGE (A homicide Bomber attempting to enter the Green Zone in Bagdad meets a sniper from the Alabama National Guard...) Rosie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 mmm mmm mmmmm grits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.