And the winner of the best film award at the Cannes festival is ...

by Simon 103 Replies latest social entertainment

  • avishai
    avishai

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20021126.shtml

    November 26, 2002

    Gun control myths

    Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College deserves some sort of special prize for taking on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is deeply entrenched and fiercely dogmatic. In her recently published book, "Guns and Violence," Professor Malcolm examines the history of firearms, gun control laws and violent crime in England. What makes this more than an exercise in history is its relevance to current controversies over gun control in America.

    Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.

    In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London.

    If we are serious about the role of guns and gun control as factors in differing rates of violence between countries, then we need to do what history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm does -- examine the history of guns and violence. In England, as she points out, over the centuries "violent crime continued to decline markedly at the very time that guns were becoming increasingly available."

    England's Bill of Rights in 1688 was quite unambiguous that the right of a private individual to be armed was an individual right, independently of any collective right of militias. Guns were as freely available to Englishmen as to Americans, on into the early 20th century.

    Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides -- an average of one a year."

    The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England -- or at least the law-abiding part of it.

    It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.

    In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.

    While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals.

    In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either.

    In England as in America, sensational gun crimes have been seized upon and used politically to promote crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing about criminals. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.

    Contact Thomas Sowell | Read his biography

  • Realist
    Realist

    avi,

    question...why do you need a weapon?

    also how many people could be killed by firearms if there were no firearms? i suspect less than now.

  • avishai
    avishai
    also how many people could be killed by firearms if there were no firearms? i suspect less than now.

    I agree. But, like I said, it's a pipe dream.

    question...why do you need a weapon?

    A weapon, or a gun? Have you ever walked in on a prowler in your house? I have. It sux.

    Have you ever been violently assaulted, or stabbed? I have.

    You need a weapon, becasue others have them, and are willing to use them violently, criminally. And, now that I have kids, yes, I'd shoot a prowler in a heartbeat. If every one had them, prowlers would be a hell of a lot less likely to take the risk of breaking in. Carjackers would be virtually eliminated. That's why an armed society is a polite society.

  • dubla
    dubla

    six-

    While I'm taking my lumps, I deserve a good ass kicking from dubla too. He pm'd me that website or one just like it recently, and I didn't think the first couple of arguments had merit, so I didn't read further to the hard evidence of the NRA canceling events in Denver.

    officially dismissed! .......he did post some hard facts on his site about moores twisting of the facts, but some of his other points definitely seemed debatable.

    aa

  • Cicatrix
    Cicatrix

    "Moore didn't tell you what to believe about guns in America in "bowling", in fact he didn't define what the problem is. He alluded to alot of things."

    I watched the movie out of curiosity over all the uproar, and I agree with this, although I'm not sure what I think about Moore's journalistic integrity. I've been perusing some pages online that cite examples of various exaggerations and creative editing in his works.I haven't had time to see if I can confirm any of the volumes of source material that he includes in his books, although I did spot his "creative editing" in regards to the timing of the NRA rally in Flint.

    Having studied journalism a bit,I can empathize with folks who are tearing their hair out over manipulated quotes and shoddy editing, not only in Moore's works, but in media in general.When I was reporting for the college paper, this was a big issue. I was thanked by several people for quoting them properly, and told that they had hesitated in agreeing to be interviewed, due to being misquoted in the past. I also had to listen to them complain at times, because of the headlines that the editor chose for the stories.Often, the headline would give the reader a totally different impression of what the story was supposed to be about.

    But that fact being said, I think Michael Moore serves a purpose. He is actually getting people mad enough to wake up and think about things (same with Rush Limbaugh on the "other side").Anyone who goes a little further and does a reality check on the issues promulgated by radicals are being exposed to information they may have never taken the time to look into in the first place.

    Also, and most important to me at the moment-he's gotten my children to take an interest in these issues. My sons actually sat and watched the whole movie, then they talked about it afterward. They actually talked to me-the woman whom they generally regard as their chauffer and bank!They had one of those eureka moments, and started thinking about what their own position regarding guns, etc. is. They talked to their friends at school.

    A week later, I still ovehear my fifteen year old talking about the movie on the phone. And he admitted to me that he's been sneaking in the library at school to read the newspaper everyday at lunchtime, too.

    Thank you, Michael Moore for that! You've managed to get my son to tread where he has never gone before:)

  • avishai
    avishai

    Have him watch bang bang, you're dead. Great film

  • Realist
    Realist

    avi,

    A weapon, or a gun? Have you ever walked in on a prowler in your house? I have. It sux.

    Have you ever been violently assaulted, or stabbed? I have.

    holy cow...where do you live???

    in any case...the experts that i have heard on the issue conclude that weapons in the population do not reduce crime but enhance it.

    NY is now one of the or the safest large city in the US. thats because of increase police activity and other programs. it would be better to go this way everywhere in the US instead of trying to put law enforcement into the hands of untrained civilians.

  • avishai
    avishai
    holy cow...where do you live???

    Actually, both those incidents happened in small towns in Oregon with good police forces. What most people don't realize is the cops can't be there immediately, they don't have a teleporter. They may find the perp, but ......you'll still be dead or maimed. Cops can't save you.

    in any case...the experts that i have heard on the issue conclude that weapons in the population do not reduce crime but enhance it.

    Which population? Switzerland? Engalnd? Who has a higher crime rate? Stat's are subjective, and so are experts.

    NY is now one of the or the safest large city in the US. thats because of increase police activity and other programs

    prove it.

    instead of trying to put law enforcement into the hands of untrained civilians.
    At last, we agree! Yes! Untrained civilians SHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS!!!! Training should be imperative!!!!! Even some cops are'nt trained well. I also can't wait for smart-gun technology. I feel that is important. So are gun locks. Responsible, legal gun ownership is what I want. Illegal gun ownership by criminals should have the highest penalty.
  • Realist
    Realist
    Which population? Switzerland? Engalnd? Who has a higher crime rate? Stat's are subjective, and so are experts.

    germany, austria, UK.

    prove it.

    prove what? that giuliani made NY the safest city in the US?

    Responsible, legal gun ownership is what I want.

    sorry can't see the need for it.

  • avishai
    avishai

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519561/posts

    40 Reasons For Gun Control

    1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

    2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

    3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

    4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

    5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

    6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

    7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

    8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

    9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

    10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

    11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

    12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

    13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

    14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

    15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

    16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

    17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

    18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

    19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

    20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

    21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

    22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

    23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

    24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

    25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

    26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

    27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

    28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

    29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

    30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

    31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

    32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

    33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

    34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

    35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

    36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

    37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

    38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

    39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

    40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
    _________________

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit