PDA

View Full Version : Invincible Ignorance of "gun control" advocates



Little-Acorn
12-18-2012, 02:31 PM
Sowell nails it again. The disconnect between what these "Gun COntrol" advocates say they want, and what they actually accomplish, continues to widen.

Why do they continue to get it wrong, doing things they insist will keep us safer, while the train of mass shootings and murders continues to get worse?

----------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/18/invincible-ignorance-n1468784

Invincible Ignorance

Thomas Sowell
Dec 18, 2012

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries-- and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s-- after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions-- there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem-- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

aboutime
12-18-2012, 02:55 PM
It's really so bad that so many people do not pay attention. In fact. So many Americans have no idea who Sowell is, due to their lack of education, or experience with actually reading.

Thomas Sowell is...in my opinion. On a level with DR. KING, as a Black American who isn't, and has never been afraid to speak truth.

I admire him, and wish I could hear more of his words, more often.

Sadly. People of his own race have declared him nearly every possible, negative descriptive word they have about him.

Another case of avoiding the truth, because it hurts them so much.

Robert A Whit
12-18-2012, 03:48 PM
As some point out, Democrats don't like Sowell. Can we say they don't like his race?

But why don't they like the man? They claim he is an Uncle Tom.

Sowell is a steward of the truth. Nothing more or less mixed in with a lot of common sense plus being an economist, he comprends the money system.

I really enjoy his writings. I think if one googles his name, they can find his articles.

DragonStryk72
12-18-2012, 04:02 PM
I think the gun control argument boils down, much like the economy, to wear you see the root cause of the issue. For those in favor of gun control, they see the guns, while those advocating against it see the person behind it. I am, as has been shown on the site, in favor of the latter, and my reason is basic common sense: People have been killing one another since the caveman days, and guns are simply the most recent and efficient tool to that end.

For gun control advocates, they see it as common sense as well: If they didn't have the guns, they wouldn't be able to fire them. Well, they're technically accurate in that assessment. The problem is that the thought assumes and ideal world, but in an ideal world, we wouldn't have guns in the first place, now would we?

I've said several iterations of this: Once you've committed higher crimes, you no longer care about the minor ones. Like, okay, for an example: Let's say you've just stolen a brand new Nissan 370z. How much do you care that you had to get around not having a key? Well, you either break into the office to steal the key, or you hotwire the car. Sure, it's adds a layer, but other than that, is it going to discourage you from stealing the car? No.

It is the same thing here. No amount of stopping the law-abiding from owning something will stop criminals from doing something. However, in the case of increasing gun control, we are actually doing the opposite. See, in places like Switzerland, where you're expected to armed, and trained in the use of those arms, criminals, even crazy ones, have a base instinct that tells them that it's a bad idea to take their chances. When you remove weapons from ordinary citizens, criminals are emboldened by it, because they now know that there is far less of a gamble that they need to fear you shooting them before they commit their crime, or as they leave.

If we are to ever stop these sorts of mass murders, then it is the human element we mus confront, as opposed to the inert objects.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-18-2012, 04:10 PM
Sowell nails it again. The disconnect between what these "Gun COntrol" advocates say they want, and what they actually accomplish, continues to widen.

Why do they continue to get it wrong, doing things they insist will keep us safer, while the train of mass shootings and murders continues to get worse?

----------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/12/18/invincible-ignorance-n1468784

Invincible Ignorance

Thomas Sowell
Dec 18, 2012

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries-- and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s-- after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions-- there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem-- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As usual a brilliant commentary by Thomas Sowell !! The guy may be quite old but he is also a very brilliant man! Notice I didn't say black man , because race has nothing to do with it. I really like the guy for his integrity and his brilliant mind.-Tyr

Little-Acorn
12-18-2012, 05:06 PM
I think the gun control argument boils down, much like the economy, to wear you see the root cause of the issue.

And if you have repeatedly passed "gun control" legislation for the purpose of "doing something about these mass murders", and the mass murders keep increasing and getting worse, then I'd say you've been wrong about the root of the problem. Wouldn't you?

DragonStryk72
12-18-2012, 05:39 PM
And if you have repeatedly passed "gun control" legislation for the purpose of "doing something about these mass murders", and the mass murders keep increasing and getting worse, then I'd say you've been wrong about the root of the problem. Wouldn't you?

Ah, yes, but the guns are still available, aren't they? They want every possible loophole closed, but even if that were the case, they can just smuggle guns in from other countries, like Mexico, something that I'm sure already occurs.

Until we address the murderers, we're going to see more of these incidents.