Saturday, February 26, 2011

Joe Huffman on Rights

 Joe Huffman responded to my post over on his blog.

But after many decades of testing this hypothesis, all over the world, in many different circumstances and cultures the best that can be said about gun control is that the benefits are inconclusive. If you want to look at more middle of the road data we have the example of what happened to the murder rate in Washington D.C. when the gun ban was declared unconstitutional. Within one year it dropped to the lowest level since 1985 – a 24 year low. And what about forcible rape? That turned out different. Within one year it dropped to the lowest level since 1967—a 42 year low. Or (via Roberta’s comment) some international data that suggests similar trends. That should be a strong hint that strict gun laws are not the solution to increasing public safety.

But if you want to look at the strongest evidence that gun control is a risk to public safety look at the genocides committed in the 20th Century. From the 1 to 1.5 million Armenians murdered in Ottoman Turkey from 1915->1917 to the 800,000 Tutsi murdered in Rwanda in 1994 gun control enabled the murder of tens of millions of people by their own governments. The evidence continues to mount in places like Darfur. Genocide only occurs when the government knows who owns the guns and/or bans guns.

My comment:

I agree with the others, Joe, that it was a wonderful post.
Your first couple of paragraphs did indeed contain some points that interested me and to which I'd like to say something.  The rest, which I did read by the way, seemed like a repeating of your standard arguments.

About Washington DC, you said after the gun ban was lifted they had all that improvement. That's a little unfair because when I blame gun availability for gun violence I'm told there are other factors, something with which I agree completely. Naturally, the removal of gun control would not be the only factor in any improvement they had. Right?  But here's the real problem with what you said. After the gun ban was lifted things changed very little for the people of the District, isn't that so?  Didn't the police and politicians conspire to make in next to impossible for them to excercise their newly restored rights? Same thing happened in Chicago a year later.  So, for that reason you really can't credit the lifting of the gun ban even in part on the reduced stats for violence.

Your next point is one that always baffles me.  How an intelligent man like yourself can believe in that alarmist talk which says genocide can come to America and we better be prepared, is beyond me. It's evidence of paranoia, sorry I don't know how else to respond to it.

Can you really compare the present day US, with all it's divisiveness, to Ottoman Turkey, or even the more recent Tutsi people of Rwanda?  All I can say is "It can't happen here," to quote Frank Zappa. It's apples and oranges.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Larry Pratt

Just a reminder.

Women and Guns in NC


What's your opinion? Do you think there is a difference between "feeling safer" and actually "being safer?" Isn't it possible to feel safer and actually be less safe, couldn't it all be an illusion of safety?

Please leave a comment.

Megan Talks to Larry Pratt



What do you think about Pratt's performance? It's guys like him who teach fanaticism to the gun owners, him and Wayne. Smooth-talking con artists is what they are.

Please leave a comment.

New Tennessee Gun Laws

Winston Dorian likes this, I suppose. He didn't really come right out and say it.
A measure that would exempt handgun permit holders from criminal background checks to buy weapons is one of two gun bills advancing in the state Senate.

The proposal sponsored by Republican Sen. Steve Southerland of Morristown was moved to the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday after passing the Senate Judiciary Committee 8-1. The companion bill is awaiting a vote in the same committee in the House.

The other proposal sponsored by Republican Sen. Mike Bell of Riceville states that it’s not an occupational hazard for employers to allow workers with handgun permits to carry their weapons at work. The measure is headed for a full Senate vote after also passing the Senate Judiciary Committee 8-1.
What's your opinion? Does it sometimes seem the lax gun states are competing with each other to see who can be the most irresponsible?

Please leave a comment.

More Laci on Rights


One of the more bizarre comments that medieval peasants did have rights, the fact that they did not know about these rights and were unable to exercise them did not matter, the right existed.

The problem with that is that is it seems an absurdity. The point of a right is to be able to exercise that right, The fact that a right is claimed, or even exists, which is unable to be exercised makes it irrelevant.

For example, Dred Scott v. Sandford pointed out that slaves were property and were unable to exercise rights. In fact, slavery is the big bugaboo in the inalienable right argument: after all, can someone consent to be a slave?
I wonder how the gun spinners will respond to this one. I know they can, so let's hear it, boys. Just because you say you need certain inanimate objects in order to do proper self-defense, does that make it so?

Please leave a comment.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Tulsa Gun Club Theft

The police chief was just shocked.



I realize these people don't enjoy the highest of educational opportunities in their state, but leaving guns just lying around in a building like that is asking for them to be stolen. This is a good example of where the "victim" of the theft is partly responisble. The thief is 100% responsible for having stolen. But the "victims" of this crime are 100% guilty of being a stupid, sloppy, arrogant gun owners who thinks they can do whatever they wants with their guns.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.