It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that John Lott has changed the national debate on gun control. His rigorous research and prolific pen have exposed the slip-shod analysis of anti-Constitution advocates.
I’ve cited his work on several occasions.
- Lott explained how anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood.
- Writing after the Tucson shootings, Lott explained the benefits of concealed-carry laws.
- In the aftermath of the Heller decision, Lott explained how more guns resulted in less crime in DC.
- Lott explained how gun control made Jamaica a more dangerous country.
It’s now time to share more of Lott’s work.
Responding to some of the demagoguery after the Colorado killings, here’s some of what he wrote for National Review.
…the M&P 15 and the AK-47 are “military-style weapons.” But the key word is “style” — they are similar to military guns in their aesthetics, not in the way they actually operate. The guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban (which was enacted in 1994 and expired ten year later) were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military but semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.
This is a key point. I suspect most journalists (and far too many people who get their news from these clowns) genuinely think an “assault weapon” is akin to a machine gun.
Lott also shows that there is nothing about “military-style” weapons that enables a bigger magazine.
The Aurora killer’s large-capacity ammunition magazines are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called “assault weapons” can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is also trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining.
Lott then discusses some of the research showing that Clinton’s assault-weapons ban didn’t reduce crime.
…despite Obama’s frightening image of military weapons on America’s streets, it is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new ban on “assault weapons” would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton administration didn’t find that the federal assault-weapons ban reduced crime. Indeed, banning guns on the basis of how they look, and not how they operate, shouldn’t be expected to make any difference. And there are no published academic studies by economists or criminologists that find the original federal assault-weapons ban to have reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault-weapons bans reduced murder or violent-crime rates either.
Indeed, it appears that crime has dropped because the ban no longer exists.
Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Preliminary numbers for 2011 show that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people. In fact, murder rates fell immediately after September 2004, and they fell more in the states without assault-weapons bans than in the states with them.
Correlation is not causation, of course, but these results also are consistent with logic and intuition. If law-abiding people have more access to guns, it makes sense that this makes life more difficult for criminals.
P.S. For fans of the Second Amendment, you’ll enjoy these gun control posters (here, here, here, here, and here). And here are some amusing images of t-shirts and bumper stickers on gun control (here, here, and here). In addition, I’ve posted four different videos on gun control (here, here, here, and here). And here’s my interview on NRA-TV.
[…] what it’s worth, however, scholars who actually do real research, like David Kopel and John Lott, reach different […]
[…] This is, in part, a victory for common sense. […]
[…] This is, in part, a victory for common sense. […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] Gee, maybe John Lott is right about more guns leading to less crime. […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control […]
[…] don’t even own any “assault weapons,” much less one with a high-capacity magazine. But I definitely don’t want the […]
[…] stated, politicians are increasingly scared to go after gun owners and we keep seeing more and more evidence that Second Amendment freedoms make society […]
[…] the invaluable John Lott touches on another error in his Townhall […]
I am confident I have learn much more about how to write a weblog post, by reading through your blog!!
[…] far removed from the threat of crime or chaos, so I’m guessing he has no understanding or appreciation of the need for self […]
Oh, I forgot to say @ Dan Mitchell: Great article!
@ JakeEagleshield said, “Anyone who need more than three shots to hit what they are aiming at,has no business with any kind of gun.
Military weapons serve no useful civilian purpose.
Unlike hunting rifles,they are designed for one purpose. To tear apart a human body.”
There is no proficiency requirement for the Second Amendment; ditto for other rights. If you make spelling errors, pronounce incorrectly, or use unnecessarily foul language, your 1st Amendment right still applies, correct?
Military weapons are exactly what the intent of the Second Amendment is for. Read history, specifically what the Colonists had in their private arsenal (cannons, ships converted for war, military rifles [modern at the time], etc.) And if you think the ‘right to bear arms’ only applies to 18th century firearms, then you have no right to speech since you’re using the internet, nor voting or due process rights b/c of modern technology as well (voting machines, computers/internet for court recording and evidence, etc.)
Rights co-exist with modern technology, they do not become “outdated”.
Hunting rifles also tear apart bodies…how else do you hunt and kill animals? By showing animals a rifle and hope they die from fear? No – by a bullet passing through vital organs. That’s the purpose for every weapon – is anyone saying otherwise? If so, stop listening to them – they’re beyond stupid. Firearms aren’t meant to tickle or provide comedic value. A large caliber hunting rifle is more effective at killing (animals or human) than a .223 caliber M4 assault rifle.
But at this point, you’re conflating hunting with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment isn’t for hunting, but so individuals can defend themselves from a tyrannical government if or when needed – and you don’t defeat a modern force with antiquated weaponry.
Sorry, but your points are moot.
[…] to the bottom image in this column. It’s perfect for your lefty friends who argue that “assault weapons” aren’t covered by the 2nd […]
[…] to the bottom image in this column. It’s perfect for your lefty friends who argue that “assault weapons” aren’t covered by the 2nd […]
[…] criminals or reduce gun crime. And I’ve detected a very troubling pattern, namely that when you explain why these schemes won’t work, the knee-jerk response from the anti-gun crowd is that we then need greater levels of control. […]
[…] criminals or reduce gun crime. And I’ve detected a very troubling pattern, namely that when you explain why these schemes won’t work, the knee-jerk response from the anti-gun crowd is that we then need greater levels of control. […]
[…] or reduce gun crime. And I’ve detected a very troubling pattern, namely that when you explain why these schemes won’t work, the knee-jerk response from the anti-gun crowd is that we then need greater levels of control. […]
[…] The silliness of banning “scary looking” rifles when there are hundreds of millions of other weapons that work the same way. […]
[…] personally vouch for every factoid, but based on what I’ve previously shared (see here, here, here, and here), I would be quite surprised if this information isn’t […]
[…] Moreover, Kalashnikovs and AR-15s are no more dangerous or deadly than other rifles, so targeting guns that “are intended primarily for military use” is irrelevant nonsense. […]
[…] Moreover, Kalashnikovs and AR-15s are no more dangerous or deadly than other rifles, so targeting guns that “are intended primarily for military use” is irrelevant nonsense. […]
[…] Moreover, Kalashnikovs and AR-15s are no more dangerous or deadly than other rifles, so targeting guns that “are intended primarily for military use” is irrelevant nonsense. […]
[…] Moreover, Kalashnikovs and AR-15s are no more dangerous or deadly than other rifles, so targeting guns that “are intended primarily for military use” is irrelevant nonsense. […]
[…] John Lott and Larry Correia already have produced very powerful evidence in defense of these weapons. […]
[…] John Lott and Larry Correia already have produced very powerful evidence in defense of these weapons. […]
[…] John Lott and Larry Correia already have produced very powerful evidence in defense of these weapons. […]
[…] takeaway from this evidence (as well as other evidence I have shared) is that availability of guns doesn’t cause […]
[…] takeaway from this evidence (as well as other evidence I have shared) is that availability of guns doesn’t cause […]
[…] reality, the types of guns that some politicians want to ban operate the same as other rifles (one bullet fired when the […]
[…] reality, the types of guns that some politicians want to ban operate the same as other rifles (one bullet fired when the […]
[…] I invite you to peruse some serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel, along with some very persuasive information from an actual firearms expert. . . […]
[…] I invite you to peruse some serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel, along with some very persuasive information from an actual firearms expert. . . […]
[…] I invite you to peruse some serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel, along with some very persuasive information from an actual firearms […]
[…] I invite you to peruse some serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel, along with some very persuasive information from an actual firearms […]
[…] tens of millions of additional weapons and a big drop in crime. Gee, maybe John Lott has been right all along? . . […]
[…] tens of millions of additional weapons and a big drop in crime. Gee, maybe John Lott has been right all […]
[…] maybe John Lott has been right all […]
[…] maybe John Lott is right about more guns leading to less […]
[…] people presumably has a positive impact. Research on mass shootings reveals that these nut jobs gravitate to “gun-free zones.” That way, they figure there won’t be any immediate resistance and they’ll be able to […]
[…] people presumably has a positive impact. Research on mass shootings reveals that these nut jobs gravitate to “gun-free zones.” That way, they figure there won’t be any immediate resistance and they’ll be able to […]
[…] people presumably has a positive impact. Research on mass shootings reveals that these nut jobs gravitate to “gun-free zones.” That way, they figure there won’t be any immediate resistance and they’ll be able to […]
[…] I want to make serious points about why gun control is misguided, I’ll often cite the scholarly work of John Lott or the expert analysis of Larry […]
[…] I want to make serious points about why gun control is misguided, I’ll often cite the scholarly work of John Lott or the expert analysis of Larry […]
[…] I want to make serious points about why gun control is misguided, I’ll often cite the scholarly work of John Lott or the expert analysis of Larry […]
[…] I want to make serious points about why gun control is misguided, I’ll often cite the scholarly work of John Lott or the expert analysis of Larry […]
Anyone who need more than three shots to hit what they are aiming at,has no business with any kind of gun.
Military weapons serve no useful civilian purpose.
Unlike hunting rifles,they are designed for one purpose. To tear apart a human body.
[…] it’s not just my satirical IQ test. You get the same results from real experts such as John Lott and David […]
[…] it’s not just my satirical IQ test. You get the same results from real experts such as John Lott and David […]
[…] the more information that we learn, the more evidence we have – as John Lott often reminds us – that more guns equal less […]
[…] shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David […]
[…] state legislatures are not the only place where we’re making progress. Thanks to scholars such as John Lott, it’s increasingly clear that social science research leans in favor of private gun […]
[…] By the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the oracle. […]
[…] By the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the oracle. […]
[…] what it’s worth, however, scholars who actually do real research, like David Kopel and John Lott, reach different […]
[…] He punctures myths about so-called assault weapons. […]
[…] debunked myths about so-called assault […]
[…] debunked myths about so-called assault […]
[…] certainly made these points when writing and pontificating about gun control. But I’m a libertarian, so that’s hardly a surprise. […]
[…] way, state legislatures are not the only place where we’re making progress. Thanks to scholars such as John Lott, it’s increasingly clear that social science research leans in favor of private gun […]
[…] the way, state legislatures are not the only place where we’re making progress. Thanks to scholars such as John Lott, it’s increasingly clear that social science research leans in favor of private gun […]
[…] the way, state legislatures are not the only place where we’re making progress. Thanks to scholars such as John Lott, it’s increasingly clear that social science research leans in favor of private gun […]
[…] why the attacks against so-called assault rifles are nonsensical. Those weapons are identical to guns that don’t look “scary.” Indeed, they’re usually less […]
[…] He punctures myths about so-called assault weapons. […]
[…] gun is not inherently dangerous. Indeed, gun ownership is associated with lower crime rates, so it’s more accurate to say they are inherently safety enhancing. Cops, for instance, […]
[…] a perfect batting average. As John Lott might say, this is an example of “more guns, less crime.” What a novel […]
[…] P.S. I was disappointed but not surprised by Obama’s rabid response and Romney’s milquetoast response to the question about “assault weapons” in the last debate. John Lott is the go-to guy on that issue, as you can from this analysis. […]
[…] shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David […]
[…] shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David […]
[…] In other words, cops understand instinctively and through practical experience what scholars such as John Lott have discovered through research. […]
[…] what it’s worth, however, scholars who actually do real research, like David Kopel and John Lott, reach different […]
[…] what it’s worth, however, scholars who actually do real research, like David Kopel and John Lott, reach different […]
[…] By the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the oracle. […]
[…] By the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the oracle. […]
[…] By the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the oracle. […]
[…] If you want more practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the oracle. […]
[…] If you want more practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the oracle. […]
[…] If you want more practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the oracle. […]
[…] why the attacks against so-called assault rifles are nonsensical. Those weapons are identical to guns that don’t look “scary.” Indeed, they’re usually less […]
[…] Ramirez that shows that so-called “assault rifles” are a statistical asterisk (and no more dangerous than other types of […]
[…] certainly made these points when writing and pontificating about gun control. But I’m a libertarian, so that’s hardly a surprise. […]
[…] P.S. I was disappointed but not surprised by Obama’s rabid response and Romney’s milquetoast response to the question about “assault weapons” in the last debate. John Lott is the go-to guy on that issue, as you can from this analysis. […]
This is the 3rd posting, of your blog I checked out.
However , I actually like this specific 1, “Assault
Weapons: Facts vs. Fiction International Liberty” the most.
All the best -Williams
[…] it’s not like we had the Internet back in those days so I could quickly peruse the writings of John Lott or David […]
@ Richard… or Dick as I would refer to him in the short version.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Let’s think about this for ONE rational minute. Yes, a well regulated militia within each state DOES help protect the State from other states and especially THE FEDERAL GVT! Point made and understood by this amendment.
Are you stupid enough to think that “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms” really only pertains to specific people and only people in the militia? You’re a fucking idiot – and the Supreme Court says so.
In Parker v. District of Columbia (March 2007), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban on grounds that it violates the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms. The case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which may soon address the meaning of the Second Amendment. Almost any standard would be an improvement over Miller.
It was designed so that every person (that’s the people part of that amendment) have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. Not the gvt, not the state and not the militia, but the people, you dumshit. So that if NECESSARY when the States needs a militia, they have one to protect and defend their state. So, you also think it’s only for that one sole purpose? When this was written there was the common sense understanding as a lifestyle that each man can feed and protect himself with his arms but will lend himself to the State when needed. You have no freaking common sense as so many haven’t either so I guess times have changed in that respect and all the more reason why we should fight to keep our freedom to keep and bear arms – because of fucking idiots like you… and the fact that people like you see nothing tyrannous about our gvt amazes m how stupid the populous truly is.
[…] not like we had the Internet back in those days so I could quickly peruse the writings of John Lott or David […]
[…] certainly made these points when writing and pontificating about gun control. But I’m a libertarian, so that’s hardly a […]
[…] certainly made these points when writing and pontificating about gun control. But I’m a libertarian, so that’s hardly a […]
One need only look at the example of 2 different nations Switzerland and Syria to see the difference between a country where guns are allowed and one where they’re not. In Switzerland EVERY man serves a short term in the military and upon completion of said term, takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON home with them to keep FOREVER. In Syria guns are COMPLETELY BANNED. In Switzerland violent gun crimes are very low to almost non existent. In Syria citizens ARE SLAUGHTERED DAILY BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. The problem in America is the bleeding hearts who insist on letting violent (reabilitated) criminals back out on the streets. While there are exceptions like James Holmes to be sure, the VAST MAJORITY of violent crimes are commited by REPEAT OFFENDERS.
[…] He punctures myths about so-called assault weapons. […]
Comparing assault style weapons to real assault weapons is just like comparing a trans sexual to a rel woman. Looks similar but not even close to being the same thing, different internal parts.
[…] He punctures myths about so-called assault weapons. […]
[…] a perfect batting average. As John Lott might say, this is an example of “more guns, less crime.” What a novel […]
[…] a perfect batting average. As John Lott might say, this is an example of “more guns, less crime.” What a novel […]
[…] P.S. I was disappointed but not surprised by Obama’s rabid response and Romney’s milquetoast response to the question about “assault weapons” in the last debate. John Lott is the go-to guy on that issue, as you can from this analysis. […]
Brett has it exactly right. The enemies of the Second Amendment cannot tell the difference between a subordinate claus and a main clause in a sentence.
Richard has it exactly backwards: the 2nd amendment says that a “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”, meaning that because a well-regulated militia is important for maintaining freedom, and the only way to have that is to have a populace that is armed and ready, that the right to be armed shall not be infringed. A well-armed populace is a prerequisite to having a well-armed militia, not the other way around.
Richard, the Supreme Court has already handed down decisions that affirm the 2nd Amendment is a right of the individual citizen. I would go further and say that States, being political institutions, don’t have rights; they have authority “loaned” to them by the people, same as for the Federal government.
richard, wrong again. when the constitution was written every free man was considered a militia man, ie the minute men. don’t say the national guard either,as the national guard was formed more than 100 years later.
[…] Assault Weapons: Facts vs. Fiction « International Liberty. Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInStumbleUponEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment and tagged Assault Weapons by michaelacummings. Bookmark the permalink. […]
The right to bear arms is defined in the constitution as the freedom to form a militia, not individual ownership. And I can’t believe you say it’s already hard to get a firearm. Just look in the classifieds or go to a gun show! Duh! I do agree that it is too easy for criminals to get guns though. That’s why very strict punishments should be handed out if a person commits a crime with a firearm.
Richard,
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Exactly where does it say an individual does not have the right to keep and bear arms?
“But it should be at least as difficult to get a gun as it is to obtain a driver’s license! All gun owners should be tested and licensed as are vehicle owners.”
It’s already difficult to get a gun, and yet criminals don’t seem to have a problem getting them. Maybe you’ve heard of the black market. The only thing gun laws do is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain them.
Bottom line is the 2nd amendment is to guarantee the states the right to “form a well-regulated militia” i.e. the national guard, not for an individual to own a gun. Aside from that, I have no problem with individuals owning a gun, I own 2 myself. But it should be at least as difficult to get a gun as it is to obtain a driver’s license! All gun owners should be tested and licensed as are vehicle owners.
@Martin
I am not a gun owner … yet. But, my husband and I are seriously considering becoming gun owners, and there are many in our family who do own firearms for various reasons; the most prevalent being that if you live in the country, you often need something to help with “pest” control (raccoons are numerous and destructive and no one wants them relocated on their property).
For me, firearms ownership comes to this – we need to the right to defend our persons and our property against all comers up to and including the government; we must if we are to truly be secure in our personal right to property which is why we have the 2nd Amendment. In order to do that, we have to have weaponry that is somewhat equal to the task which is why we have to be allowed to secure even military-style weaponry and assemble large personal arsenals if our personal assets and inclinations allow.
And think about it: when we live in an age where the government has recently been given the right to compel us to buy goods and services under threat of penalty if we do not comply and the current executive of said government has revealed that he does not think that the owner of a small business is the main driver and entity responsible for the creation and existence of said business but rather it’s the government who did that … how long will it be until the government considers itself able to take whatever it desires or compel us to do whatever it wishes? In that case, should the worst happen, where will we be if we cannot defend our persons and property?
Back in the 90’s during the anti-assault weapons craze by liberal a mayor in a large New Jersey town wanted to do a press conference about assault weapons.
The mayor’s point being he wanted to stop all of the destruction and killing these awful guns do.
So he called the Chief of Police and told him he needed an AK-47 or an M16 from the police departments storage area of guns obtained from crime scenes.
The Chief told the Mayor that they didn’t have any because neither of those guns had EVER been used in a crime in the history of the city.
Not to be deterred by facts the mayor went and bought on from a gun store.
He then had his press conference and promised to save the city from this imaginary plague of violence.
And these guns were soon banned form that city having never been used in any crime.
But the mayor scored political points with his liberal supporters.
[…] Assault Weapons: Facts vs. Fiction […]
Great article. Keep up the good work. John Stossell did a great program on this a while back.
“America’s love-affair with the gun” is actually Americans’ conviction that power resides in the citizens. It is granted, temporarily, by the citizens to a few of their fellows (the governors, i.e. the government); and it may be taken back at any time. The ownership of a gun is the recognition that the people own the government.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Shining some light on the facts about “assault weapons.”
Well, you are all clearly passionate about your rights to bare arms.
My thanks to those who were more gentle in their response than others. Hopefully, somehow, we can find a way to prevent the Jamie Holmes’s of this world from surfacing too often.
I, for one, cannot see how one might achieve that – in part – as I suspect the administration has neither the will or the heart to get into yet further debate on how to avoid a repeat of these incidents.
As John Lott said in this interview….”We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns”.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/
I have taken the remarks a little out of context, but I don’t think it matters, when looking at Jamie Holmes who was (presumably) an extremely law abiding citizen when he obtained his permit.
If the argument is that “he was” at the time of obtaining the permit – but something happened to him since doing so”, then I still worry about the future. Maybe one just has to accept that you can’t get it right every time.
Martin – It only seems counterintuitive when you are not taking statistics like Lott accrues and sites into account.
Your analogy, in my opinion, is inaccurate. Iran has been the State Dept’s #1 state sponsor of terrorism for decades. If gun rights advocates were clamoring to trust convicted, violent felons with powerful weapons then it would be apt. However you could use the analogy of responsible states like the US, UK, France, etc maintaining nuclear weapons for a deterrent or self-defense.
Martin, here’s what isn’t right: you claim to “understand the right to protect your home, yourself and family with a gun”, yet because you obviously don’t know anything about the subject, you have no idea which firearms would make good choices for that task. In other words, you have no criteria to judge what should or shouldn’t be “available and acceptable” to American citizens, other than the lies and misinformation spread by an establishment “news” media dominated by a strong anti-gun bias.
The real issue is the necessity to protect yourself against the government. But governments prefer unarmed citizens, they’re easier to control, intimidate, and ignore. Syria seems to be a good current example.
Yet the list of civilians killed by US government’s “collateral damage” is immense, which is why the Second Amendment is so important!
I’m actually wondering how the total killed as collateral damage by US government forces (anywhere in the world) compares to the number killed otherwise in America… Perhaps Joe Citizen is not as safe as the government would like us to believe.
Martin, that analogy is terrible. The reminder that it’s people that do the killing is supposed to lead a thinking individual to the idea that laws should target criminals, not the general population.
What you call gun culture is really a culture of self reliance.
It’s very difficult for someone (like me) not immersed in your gun culture, to grasp these ideas.
I can understand the right to protect your home, yourself and family with a gun.
What I cannot understand is the range of guns available and acceptable.
The old NRA adage that “guns don’t kill people, people do”, is (imho) akin to saying “let’s give Iran a nuclear warhead, and then wondering why it went bang.
Something isn’t right.