The efficiency and effectiveness of gun regulation is a matter of controversy. The debate over this issue has become notorious for its emotion driven rationales and hardened policy positions. This analysis is based on the belief that good laws and sound policy should be based on evidence and subject to effectiveness reviews. Accordingly, it examines the cost/benefits and effectiveness of gun registration as crime control. [More]
Article author
Bruce Gold tells me:
The bill you are fighting Bobby Rush/H.R. 45 is so similar to the gun laws up here in Canada I suspect he has been reading if not copying our legislation. All of the things he wants have not effected crime in Canada one bit and have been enormously expensive coming in at about $2Billion for the Federal govt. Costs to Provinces, police, courts, the firearms industry, the shooting sports and gun owners are all in addition to that. I did a study awhile back on how successful regulating the law abiding is when "criminals" are the supposed target. I suspect the same sort of stats could be found in the US is someone wanted to hunt them down.
The above article makes sense - gun control laws don't limit crime.
ReplyDeleteBut gun control laws NEVER WERE ABOUT ORDINARY STREET CRIME! They are about control, period.
Even if you're dealing with someone who is part of the "useful idiots" on the other side, they are so emotional about it that you'll never dissuade them.
Best response I ever heard was along the lines of "If you want to take my guns you had better be willing to die to do so - because I'm willing to die to keep them.
Of course it cost $2Billion. How else is Obama going to create all those jobs for all his zombies? It makes perfect sense. Let the people who commit the crimes take the guns away from those who defend themselves from them.
ReplyDeleteFrom HR 45, line 20 #(3) "to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms;
ReplyDeleteThey are restricting availability "TO" criminals? Hmm... I don't think that means what they think it means.
With apologies to author Bruce Gold, whose efforts I personally appreciate (more on which in a moment):
ReplyDeleteWho cares? This isn't about statistics, or science, or even objective policy. It never was; it should be pretty clear by now that the disarmers consider the space between statistics and propaganda to be the identity symbol. Stats that support the propaganda? Push 'em, hard. Stats that don't support the propaganda? Ignore 'em--and make up more stats that support the propaganda. Keep the opposition so occupied with refuting the made-up stats that they don't have time to get to the meat of the problem.
Do we get that yet? Sales doesn't even need to do its job if the marketing push is big enough. We all know that the disarmers are pushing snake oil, and that their sales pitch falls completely apart at the first hint of any reasoned argument. What of it? The marketing juggernaut simply rolls along as if it doesn't matter at all.
Because, in the end, it doesn't. The disarmers are never meaningfully called to task for their improprieties. Never. And they continue to grow bolder all the while. Truly, they hardly even pretend any more. They are certainly not asking.
Personally, I like Mr. Gold's article. It does a good job of quickly distilling arcane statistics into something that can be grasped, and it does so with a style that focuses attention on just how ludicrous the disarmers' value proposition is. It would be a useful tool to help the liberty-minded focus their arguments more tightly, for those times when someone insists on discussing statistics.
Which brings us, sadly, right back to the original problem. If we ever really were there, we are certainly now past the point where reasoned persuasion is going to stay the rabid dog at all. Why spend any effort trying to prove what has already been proven, to people who aren't listening anyway?
I prefer David's approach. It ain't about the fictions of objective policy or of controlling street crime--it's about pointing out the things that do matter: little things like the rule of law (that is, SUPREME LAW, itself only legitimized only by the BoR), equal protection under the law (even for non-Only Ones), and ultimately the right of any peaceable person to resist unwarranted coercion or force, even (especially?) if initiated by his or her own government.
It's a rigged game. Why bother to play by the rules?
Great comments and particular high fives for A Texan and Kevin Wilmeth's closing words.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of an ol buddy who said long ago -
(pertaining to whichever crooked beauro - crap yer addressing)
They done had boxcar loads of redresses,
complaints, grievances, etc. etc.
sent their way ...
They do not care what you think and will continue the course they've plotted regardless.
If the "Only One's" and their handlers show willingness (and perhaps even joy) to abuse the populace while yet we are armed - think what may lay on the other side.
They've been working hard and long towards this end, and I believe will use whatever force is necessary in the coming days to
"refine" their kingdom.
Seems other countries have taken their beating and we're the last of the rebel holdouts. Our time for put up or hit the road is near.
But from the tone expressed here I'm assured I'll not be alone in the trenches !
They declared war long ago.
Link doesn't work for me.
ReplyDeleteAnon--the title link worked--don't know what the problem was with the "More" link but I just redid it and tested it. It works as of this posting. Please let me know if you still have difficulty.
ReplyDeleteBut from the tone expressed here I'm assured I'll not be alone in the trenches ! -Jeff
ReplyDeleteYou might be. You will be alone in the trenches if you rely on me to keep you company. I am a peripatetic hunter. I refuse to be prey. One shot at me, that's all they get, if it doesn't work out for them, too bad. I will be moving, and hunting and taking game of opportunity. As I can't tell one game animal, of the same species, from another, (do deer have first names?) I will try to bag them all. :), :)
"I suspect the same sort of stats could be found in the US is someone wanted to hunt them down."
ReplyDeleteSomeone named John Lott, maybe?
My right to defend my life and the lives of innocent people has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the misbehavior of others. They are not me, I am not them. If anything, the frequency with which they pop up should prove that armed self-defense is not an outdated concept we can't afford because it "costs society too much."
As a small part of society, by taking responsibiloty I am less of a "burden" on "society." By the way, I feel most of the time that society views me as a speedbump. If they get what they seem to be asking for -- peace and security of the kind that grows out of martial law -- I'll continue to live free, regardless.
SA, say it isn't so. Hunters respect the game they hunt, and any two-legged critter that would play predator on you or me, is hardly deserving of the moniker "game". "Vermin" gets close, but still is not quite contemptuous enough for my taste. (Further suggestions?)
ReplyDeleteAs the instructor in my rifle class said, [paraphrasing] "with a game animal, you have a moral obligation to be humane, but if you actually have to shoot at another human, those considerations are out the window."
Or, more succinctly, when Jeff Cooper was asked if violence begets violence, he would simply say, "I would certainly hope that it does!"
(I sure do miss him. My father laid the groundwork, but it was Jeff Cooper who "raised me out of the mud".)
I sincerely miss Jeff Cooper, he seems to have been the last man in America who wasn't ashamed of testosterone.
ReplyDeleteI do not respect the game I fear I will be forced to hunt. Most game does nothing to entice you to kill it. Ergo, deserving of respect. The game that forces you to hunt is just another dead organism that doesn't know it yet.
It was a figure of speech Mr. Perfectionist. And whether you or anyone else "is with me" is irrelevant to my continued will to resist. Trench does not necessarily imply static conditions.
ReplyDeleteI liked Jeff Cooper's use of the term - goblin. Kinda all inclusive.
ReplyDeleteI was marking the difference between defense and offense. I get very offensive when forced to defend myself. I don't hunker down and await the next attack, as "in the trenches". Wasn't taking a swipe at you, just noting a difference in our thinking.
ReplyDelete