Some facts about Guns and why liberals calling for control are wrong

Time for some real facts about guns and gun control in the wake of calls for assault rifle bans.

You will see why the liberal wankers who call for such things are completely wrongheaded.

Fifty-five million kids went to school on the day that 20 were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Even in the United States, therefore, the chances of a child’s dying in a school shooting are remote. As my friend Steven Pinker demonstrates in his monumental study of human violence, The Better Angels of Our Nature, our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events. Is gun violence increasing in the United States? No. But it certainly seems to be when one recalls recent atrocities in Newtown and Aurora. In fact, the overall rate of violent crime has fallen by 22 percent in the past decade (and 18 percent in the past five years).

We still have more guns and more gun violence than any other developed country, but the correlation between guns and violence in the United States is far from straightforward. Thirty percent of urban households have at least one firearm. This figure increases to 42 percent in the suburbs and 60 percent in the countryside. As one moves away from cities, therefore, the rate of gun ownership doubles. And yet gun violence is primarily a problem in cities. It is the people of Detroit, Oakland, Memphis, Little Rock, and Stockton who are at the greatest risk of being killed by guns.

Oh, more guns in the countryside but less gun crime…boy that’s inconvenient.

In the weeks since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, advocates of stricter gun control have called for a new federal ban on “assault weapons” and for reductions in the number of concealed-carry permits issued to private citizens. But the murder rate has fallen precipitously since the federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004, and this was also a period in which millions of Americans began to carry their guns in public. Many proponents of gun control have observed that the AR 15, the gun that Adam Lanza used to murder 20 children in Newtown, is now the most popular rifle in America. But only 3 percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with rifles of any type.

So an assault rifle ban won’t do anything.

Seventy mass shootings have occurred in the U.S. since 1982, leaving 543 dead. These crimes were horrific, but 564,452 other homicides took place in the U.S. during the same period. Mass shootings scarcely represent 0.1 percent of all murders. When talking about the problem of guns in our society, it is easy to lose sight of the worst violence and to become fixated on symbols of violence.

Not all those homicides were with guns…but the final kicker against all those who would call for bans and safe zones:

[W]hen a massacre is under way, nothing can substitute for the presence of other armed men and women who have been trained to fight with guns. That is why one bothers to call the police. And those who are horrified at the idea of stationing a police officer in every school should be obliged to tell us how long they would like to wait for the police to arrive in the event that they are needed. Declaring schools to be “gun-free zones” makes them especially good places to commit mass murder—this is more NRA propaganda that happens to be true.  With the exception of the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every mass shooting since 1950 has taken place where civilians are forbidden to carry firearms. 

  • In Vino Veritas

    Yup, that about covers it.

  • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

    Cam you sure its liberals and liberalism as a whole pushing gun control, or wannabe authoritarians pretending to be liberals that push for gun control.

    Looking at these two linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control (under “Associations with authoritarianism” sub heading)

    and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism (under: “Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.” (and before some wise-arse points it out I have seen the disclaimer about American Liberalism (Americans – always being different))

    I would say a liberal actually following the true (conventional) liberal path would have no issues with guns to the point they would “encourage” guns in order that “free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.” was not attacked by an authoritarian state apparatus trying to repress those things mentioned.

    For me as a (social) liberal, guns themselves don’t worry me as I would not have objections to looking at them, holding them, (and after training) firing them but I do worry about idiots who Darwin should of weeded out a long time ago having possession of guns…

    That saying if a South Auckland Shop owner had the 12 gauge to defend their business against low life scum and used the weapon in defence from such scum – I am not going to cry a river for the scum who had their arse blown off by the shop owner defending their property (and most likely people)…

    Yeah tl:dr again I know – but how else am I meant to convey a point…

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.christophers Mark Christophers
  • nasska

    I’m inclined to disagree with Whale’s tag of “Liberals” too. I’ve always associated the term with those who believe in small government & individual freedom.

    In general those clamouring for the individual to be disarmed & the agencies of the state to made more powerful are authoritarian socialists. Examples are most of those born with an extra “X” chromosome, girly men & teachers.

  • A.random.reader

    The reason I support disarmament is that 50% of people in this world are below average – and no amount of training can make up for that.

    The following picture illustrates everything that is wrong with liberal gun laws.

    http://i.imgur.com/HkuPM.jpg

    • cows4me

      So random.reader you advocate government to the lowest common denominator?. Your logic is upside down, unfortunately many in our government are inflected with the same mentality. We as a society have suffered under progressive governments that continually instigate laws that will not pull the bottom up but expect the top to come down. How can we as a society possibly advance if we must always play second fiddle to the bottom 50%?

      • A.random.reader

        Do you want the clown in that picture living next to you? I don’t.

        • cows4me

          Not a problem as long as the far left loons don’t confiscate my weapons, because you can be sure to hell this two bob won’t be surrendering his.

        • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

          He won;t be for long acting like that…he is a temporary citizen at best

    • Economist

      50% of people in this world are below average

      I can’t help it if you’re mathematically illiterate. This is simply not true. Like traffic accidents, gun deaths are caused by a very small fraction of the population. It is a statistical fact that 95% of drivers and at least 99% of gun owners are above average. I can’t help it that your state school education provided nothing but liberal indoctrination.

  • Goldie

    The United States homicide rate is about five times higher than other Western countries. So presumably the homicide rate is caused by:
    (a) Americans have a previously unknown genetic disposition towards homicide, or
    (b) there is a link between Amercians unusually high levels of adherence to Christianity and homicide (or some other cultural factor that is prevalent in the US but not in other western countries), or
    (c) the extraordinary easy access to firearms, especially handguns and military style weapons in the US, which means that violent crime in the US is lethal in a way that isn’t the case in other western countries.
    As a rifle owner, I don’t have a problem with gun control – any responsible owner should first be expected to undertake a gun safety course, prove that they are not a criminal or a nutter, and be expected to own that rifle in a responsible way.

    • JC

      From memory there’s a police check on all buyers of weapons plus states have their own legal requirements of varying severity.

      However, take Chicago which has the toughest gun laws.. 2000 kids were shot in the past year mostly with illegal guns. Or take gun homicide victims.. depending on the state up to 70% victims have a criminal record. In other words its crooks shooting crooks with illegal guns in some near ungovernable cities.

      Also, the cities have half the (legal) guns of the rural folk but they kill twice as many people. Finally, all the mass shootings but one have occurred in “gun free” zones. Yes, the US has a firearm problem but its hardly caused by registered gun owners.

      JC

      • A.random.reader

        There are no police checks for private gun sales in the US.

        That’s one of the biggest problems with the American system. There’s an easy conduit for transferring guns from legally registered owners to crooks.

        • JC

          Well, the law is pretty specific that all licenced gun dealers, manufacturers etc must ring the FBI to get clearance for all would be firearm purchasers.. it takes less than a minute for most people and a max of three days where there are come concerns about the purchser’s background.

          I accept that sales between families, friends and individuals are unchecked but that’s not so different to our own situation over the decades where guns have freely traded between individuals.

          JC

        • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

          Idiot…crooks won;t get a police check anyway…they are crooks for a reason…they don’t follow the law.

  • Economist

    Which part of “life free or die” do liberals not understand?

119%