In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
C&P editorial might be of interest
MVP
Member Posts: 23,453 ✭✭✭
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/columnists/story/5728183p-5127673c.html
Gun-free world won't stop accidents, suicides, bad guys
RICHARD S. DAVIS
Published: May 10th, 2006 01:00 AM
Nearly nine years ago, Washington voters defended their gun rights at the polls. Initiative 676, a trigger lock and handgun licensing measure, failed by a 71-29 margin, losing in every county in the state.
It was a good decision, consistent with the state constitution's unambiguous declaration: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."
That's worth remembering as gun-control advocates renew their efforts, spurred by Seattle's Capitol Hill homicides. Seattle's mayor and other prominent politicians have called for tougher gun laws. They reprise familiar themes: a ban on assault weapons, mandatory trigger locks and background checks at gun shows.
The political imperative to "do something" when bad things happen often misfires, as the remedies turn out to be ineffective or counterproductive. Think about wage-and-price controls, windfall-profits taxes and doing "whatever it takes" to rebuild New Orleans.
Researchers have demonstrated what most of us know intuitively: What the gun-control advocates want to do is ineffective, unconstitutional and wrong.
The most outspoken of these folks display a peculiar moral vanity, posturing as if only they are properly saddened by gun violence and only they are willing to take bold action to stop it. Invariably, their "bold" actions cost them nothing, accomplish nothing and sacrifice the rights of honest gun owners. Some of them also seem to believe their anti-gun stance proves that they have achieved a higher level of evolutionary development than their pistol-packing peers.
The Open Society Institute placed state gun laws in six categories: registration, safety training, regulation of sales (including background checks), safe storage requirements, owner licensing and restrictive local ordinances. Notably, all of them focus on controlling the behavior of responsible adults who purchase their guns in a legal market. An assessment of the strategies published in the most recent Cato Journal confirms the findings of most previous studies: Gun control does not reduce crime. Criminals ignore the law. The decent folks who follow the rules are not the problem.
In last year's best-seller "Freakonomics," economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner explain why that's so: "Regulation of a legal market is bound to fail when a healthy black market exists for the same product." What works is punishing gun-using criminals.
It's important to put the risks in perspective. According to state Health Department statistics, firearms caused 38 accidental deaths in the five years from 2000-2004, only one involving a child under 15. Of the 521 accidental drowning deaths in the same period, 90 were children. Nationally, the authors of "Freakonomics" find, a child is 100 times more likely to die accidentally in a swimming pool than in gunplay.
Guns accounted for just 17 percent of the 16,341 fatal injuries (accidental and intentional) in the first half of the decade. Most firearm deaths - 2,073 - were suicides; 554 were homicides. That's about half of all suicides and murders in the period. Had the proposed laws been in place, these lives still would have been lost.
If gun-control laws don't work, why do anti-gun advocates continue to press for them? The only reasonable explanation is that, while their agenda may begin with licensing, trigger guards and assault weapons, the ultimate objective is more quixotic: a gun-free world.
San Francisco voters indulged their fantasy last November, when 58 percent of them endorsed Proposition H, banning handgun possession. Voters ignored local law enforcement officials, who warned that it would do no good and present an enforcement nightmare. The ban has been challenged and will most likely be tossed out by the court.
Ignorance and carelessness cause most gun accidents, according to the National Rifle Association. They're also the cause of most bad law. A friend suggests a "5R" curriculum that would include teaching rights and responsibilities, including gun safety. The more we know, the less we fear.
The assault on gun rights, even the silly and symbolic, must be confronted aggressively. Our constitutional rights are not discretionary things to be lightly discarded, like quaint relics from another time. They must be exercised and defended.
The world's an unsafe place, not because of guns, but because of bad guys who must be stopped. Sometimes with a gun.
Richard S. Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, writes for this page every other Wednesday. His columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the council. Write Davis at rsdavis@researchcouncil.org or Washington Research Council, 108 S. Washington St., Suite 406, Seattle, WA 98104-3408.
Gun-free world won't stop accidents, suicides, bad guys
RICHARD S. DAVIS
Published: May 10th, 2006 01:00 AM
Nearly nine years ago, Washington voters defended their gun rights at the polls. Initiative 676, a trigger lock and handgun licensing measure, failed by a 71-29 margin, losing in every county in the state.
It was a good decision, consistent with the state constitution's unambiguous declaration: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."
That's worth remembering as gun-control advocates renew their efforts, spurred by Seattle's Capitol Hill homicides. Seattle's mayor and other prominent politicians have called for tougher gun laws. They reprise familiar themes: a ban on assault weapons, mandatory trigger locks and background checks at gun shows.
The political imperative to "do something" when bad things happen often misfires, as the remedies turn out to be ineffective or counterproductive. Think about wage-and-price controls, windfall-profits taxes and doing "whatever it takes" to rebuild New Orleans.
Researchers have demonstrated what most of us know intuitively: What the gun-control advocates want to do is ineffective, unconstitutional and wrong.
The most outspoken of these folks display a peculiar moral vanity, posturing as if only they are properly saddened by gun violence and only they are willing to take bold action to stop it. Invariably, their "bold" actions cost them nothing, accomplish nothing and sacrifice the rights of honest gun owners. Some of them also seem to believe their anti-gun stance proves that they have achieved a higher level of evolutionary development than their pistol-packing peers.
The Open Society Institute placed state gun laws in six categories: registration, safety training, regulation of sales (including background checks), safe storage requirements, owner licensing and restrictive local ordinances. Notably, all of them focus on controlling the behavior of responsible adults who purchase their guns in a legal market. An assessment of the strategies published in the most recent Cato Journal confirms the findings of most previous studies: Gun control does not reduce crime. Criminals ignore the law. The decent folks who follow the rules are not the problem.
In last year's best-seller "Freakonomics," economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner explain why that's so: "Regulation of a legal market is bound to fail when a healthy black market exists for the same product." What works is punishing gun-using criminals.
It's important to put the risks in perspective. According to state Health Department statistics, firearms caused 38 accidental deaths in the five years from 2000-2004, only one involving a child under 15. Of the 521 accidental drowning deaths in the same period, 90 were children. Nationally, the authors of "Freakonomics" find, a child is 100 times more likely to die accidentally in a swimming pool than in gunplay.
Guns accounted for just 17 percent of the 16,341 fatal injuries (accidental and intentional) in the first half of the decade. Most firearm deaths - 2,073 - were suicides; 554 were homicides. That's about half of all suicides and murders in the period. Had the proposed laws been in place, these lives still would have been lost.
If gun-control laws don't work, why do anti-gun advocates continue to press for them? The only reasonable explanation is that, while their agenda may begin with licensing, trigger guards and assault weapons, the ultimate objective is more quixotic: a gun-free world.
San Francisco voters indulged their fantasy last November, when 58 percent of them endorsed Proposition H, banning handgun possession. Voters ignored local law enforcement officials, who warned that it would do no good and present an enforcement nightmare. The ban has been challenged and will most likely be tossed out by the court.
Ignorance and carelessness cause most gun accidents, according to the National Rifle Association. They're also the cause of most bad law. A friend suggests a "5R" curriculum that would include teaching rights and responsibilities, including gun safety. The more we know, the less we fear.
The assault on gun rights, even the silly and symbolic, must be confronted aggressively. Our constitutional rights are not discretionary things to be lightly discarded, like quaint relics from another time. They must be exercised and defended.
The world's an unsafe place, not because of guns, but because of bad guys who must be stopped. Sometimes with a gun.
Richard S. Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, writes for this page every other Wednesday. His columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the council. Write Davis at rsdavis@researchcouncil.org or Washington Research Council, 108 S. Washington St., Suite 406, Seattle, WA 98104-3408.