Friday, January 05, 2007

"Some Perspective on Call for Gun Control "

A regular contributor to the Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums has been kind enough to share a very informative article written by Peter Friedman. This little gem comes to us from (of all places) Massachusetts. There are several facts given that completely debunk some politicians’ cries for more gun control. The next time you hear about someone wanting to further infringe upon your innate and guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, be ready to confront that anti-gun zealot with the following information:

A Bill of Rights revisionist may say: “Guns are dangerous. They accidentally kill millions of people every year.”

Mr. Friedman corrects with: “According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2003 (the most recent data available), there were 112,132 accidental deaths in the United States. Of these, 730 were firearms related, while 44,757 resulted from automobiles. Other large contributors to injury deaths were falling (17,229), poisoning (19,457), suffocation (5,579), drowning (3,306) and fire (3,369). Surprisingly, even bicycles and tricycles caused more accidental fatalities (762) than firearms.”

A liberty assailant may say: “Guns cause people to kill themselves when they otherwise wouldn’t.”

Mr. Friedman corrects with: “Japan's suicide rate, which is 25 percent higher than that of the United States, coupled with their draconian gun laws, suggests that without firearms, those who want to commit suicide will find other ways.”

An anti-freedom elitist may say: “We need to get evil-looking assault weapons off the streets to make it safer for our children.”

Mr. Friedman corrects with: “Crimes committed with semiautomatic sporting rifles such as the type used in [a recent Massachusetts shooting] (improperly referred to as "assault weapons" in the media), are very rare, running in the neighborhood of 1 percent of gun crimes. Nationally, murders with knives, clubs and axes outnumber murders with "assault weapons" by 20 to 1.”

Finally, an anti-gun lobbyist may say: “Guns are more likely to kill a family member or cause an otherwise good guy to turn bad than be used in self-defense.”

Mr. Friedman corrects with: “Criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck has written peer-reviewed studies that report that firearms are used three to five times more often for defensive purposes than for criminal activity. In total, Dr. Kleck estimates that firearms are used defensively about 2.5 million times each year in the United States. In most cases, the gun is only brandished; only in 1 percent of the cases are the criminals wounded, 0.1 percent fatally. Dr. John Lott of Yale University conducted an exhaustive multi-year statistical analysis of crime trends in every county in the United States and has proven that allowing law-abiding citizens to be armed lowers crime."

Sorry gun control agenda pushers... let's not let facts get in the way of good emotional rants.

2 Comments:

At January 08, 2007, Blogger Nick said...

As far as suicide is concerned, I think a gun makes for a good way out for some because it's basically like shutting off a lightswitch. Most other methods you have some time to realize "Oh shit, what did I just do?" So I do think that limiting firearm distribution would probably cut down on suicides, although probably not significantly.

I thought you'd want to know that my dad is really pushing to buy an AK-47 to shoot some rabid raccoons that have been roaming our neighborhood. The AK-47 is total overkill, so basically he wants a new toy.

 
At January 08, 2007, Blogger Mike @ MidwesternBite said...

I follow your logic Nick, but unfortunately Japan proves your argument doesn't hold up.

However, I hate basing my argument on those statistics, because even if those numbers were reversed, firearms still shouldn't be banned for that reason. People that want to commit suicide will. The only "slow" suicide I can think of is trying to overdose on aspirin or something similar that is merely a call for help. Those that just want attention won't put a gun to their head. Are we going to ban buildings over two stories and build electric fences around every mile of railroad track because people might use them to commit suicide?

As for your Dad getting an AK-47, it's actually not overkill at all. As I've mentioned before, the AK-47 shoots a 7.62x39 cartridge that is perfectly suitable for smaller varmints. No ethical hunter would ever use it for any animal much bigger. It's basically out of the question for taking deer.

Now that I think about it, these reasons lead me again to have everyone again think about the hype over "evil assault weapons" like the AK-47. It's a great rifle and a lot of fun, but it is barely accurate enough for a LARGE target at 150 yards or closer and uses somewhat anemic ammunition. Why aren't people trying to ban longer range and more powerful hunting rifles that could kill a large moose at 500 yards?

Answer: Because they don't look scary.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home