The Virginia-Pilot cites homicide among youths as common cause for ideological opponents to set aside their differences:
Gun-control and gun rights activists have sharp differences. But they should be able to agree on this: keeping firearms out of the hands of young men who use them to kill.
"Who use them to kill..."?
Absolutely. I could not agree more.
Where the disagreement arises is in how to make that happen.
One side advocates increasing restrictions on firearms ownership, that is, more "gun control" laws. Yet, as the Pilot admits, guns are available through criminal channels via purchase, trade or theft. And while costs and risks involved make such transactions significantly more problematic than the hyperbolic analogy of "buying a loaf of bread, a pair of gym shoes or the latest CD" (do teens even buy CDs any more?), it's no secret that if a criminal wants a gun he can get one.
Thing is, he'll have to willfully break several edicts to do it.
No problem.
There are strict laws regulating dealing in firearms. There are strict laws defining "prohibited persons" who may not legally even touch a firearm. There are strict laws forbidding possession of guns by minors and "illegally" carrying them concealed. There are strict laws against brandishing a gun, threatening someone with one, assault with a deadly weapon, shooting people who aren't attacking you...
There are laws against murder.
They don't seem to be working very well with people inclined to disobey them, do they?
It's no surprise, really. We've been able to observe this for a very long time, and it was formally summarized by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser in the Spring 2007 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Their conclusion?
"In 2004," Kates and Mauser tell us, "the US National Academy of Sciences ... failed to identify any gun control that reduced violent crime, suicides or gun accidents." This was "from a review of 153 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the US Centers for Disease Control...."
Bottom line: so-called "gun control" doesn't work. Imposing more of it won't work, either.
It's nice to see The Pilot forgo typical demands for even more gun restrictions that criminals will ignore, and advocate instead:
Parents must be involved in their children's lives. Adults, especially men, must be mentors to youths who need them...
That and holding people accountable for their actions...
Those of us who take our responsibilities as citizens seriously question why any adult in our society needs to be told that. Regardless--the unwillingness or inability of some to behave themselves is no claim for restrictions on our freedoms.
------------
Examining the anti-gun gang
Dallas Libertarian Examiner Garry Reed takes a look at some of the coverage his fellow Examiners, including yours truly, have provided on the "gun control" front.
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: You bet it's personal!
- Austin: Does the Second Amendment work?
- Boston: Back door gun control
- Charlotte: Dangers of gun registration: 'The Belgian Corporal'
- Cleveland: National Rifle & Pistol Matches begin today
- DC: Sotomayor: latinas, guns, and werewolves
- Denver: Tipping further
- Los Angeles: De-Centralization Now, Part II.
- Minneapolis: Taking to the air in defense of open carry
- Seattle: Three years later, Pinnacle Lake Trail murders still unsolved
- St. Louis: The Brady Campaign to create 'gun crime'
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
Comments
To think that if guns we not available then crimes would not happen is a fantasy. If someone dies from a bullet then yes that crime would not of happened if the gun or bullets were not available. BUT there would be another crime somewhere else with a different weapon and the same outcome. Someone would die no matter what. And it would happen a lot more because now law abiding citizens would not be able to protect themselves with the use of a gun. After guns it would be knives. The list would go on and on. The liberals will never feel safe. It is impossible. There are to many people in the world. You can not control them all and it only takes a few to cause havoc. If the libs put as much effort in trying to help people instead of trying to help themselves the world would be a better place but they don't want a better world, they just want a better life for themselves.
RTKBA Forum
Since there is no real way to keep guns out of the hands of the violent predators, the solution is to make certain that every good person who wants a gun can get it and have it available at all times. The only way to do that is to get rid of every gun "law" there is.
I'm not sure what it will take to get this to sink into the minds of those who push gun control. It's quite simple, really. If someone disregards laws against assault, rape, and murder, they sure as heck are not going to care about laws against gun possession. It's been shown time and time again that gun control does not work and actually makes people LESS safe. Anti-gun folks just need to remove their blinders and look at the facts, rather than relying on hyperbole and emotion.
Unfortunately, David Codrea recycles an old lie. The National Academy of Science replied to John Lott/Mary Rosh, who made the same misrepresentation as Codrea:
"Lott's column gave the clear impression that the study was about gun control. It was not. The study was about the quality of the data and research on firearms injury and violence. These data and studies are frequently used by both sides in the debate on gun control. It was the committee's task to make judgments about the quality of this scientific knowledge. The committee was not asked and does not offer any conclusions or comments on gun control policy. "
The above quote is from the NAS' executive director, E. W. Colglazier.
As Codrea knows, the Kates/Mauser paper claimed the NAS studied over 80 gun control measures. The NAS actually looked at over 80 80 different firearms education programs and found there was no evidence that they were effective in keeping children away from guns.
Why must Codrea lie?
Grant: There is absolutely no evidence that more guns make people more safe. None whatsoever.
As it is, there is really nothing stopping criminals from getting firearms because there are no laws against them getting them. Where do criminals get guns? Well, they get them from the same places you do. Logic dictates that the system is broken.
Kidd. Two guys walk up to you with a knives. They say give me all your money or I will kill you. What will you do?
Same to guys walk up to me with their knives and say give me all your money or I will kill you. I pull out my gun and shoot them in self defense.
Who was safe you or me.
To say There is absolutely no evidence that more guns make people more safe. is a total cop out. I don't need evidence. I am safer with a seat belt while driving, I am safer with a life jacket wile boating and I am safer with a gun while living my every day life. Period. If you do not see it that way then that is your right but we have our rights also. Just because you don't like them does not make them wrong.
It would help if "Captain Kidd" would stick to my column, which never mentioned Lott. I added a link to the Kates/Mauser paper so readers can see for themselves what it says and whether my citing the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy constitutes a "lie".
Their footnote source for the quote I presented references CHARLES F. WELLFORD ET AL., NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL, FIREARMS AND
VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW, and the NAS' OWN 12/16/04 press release for that says "current research and data on firearms and violent crime are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various measures to prevent and control gun violence"
In other words, they "failed to identify any gun control that reduced violent crime, suicides or gun accidents."
After all that, they need to study it some more.
So I'm not sure what is driving Captain Anonymous except hatred for people who don't need his statist interference with freedom and a childish need to insult them from the shadows
I have been running a Pro 2a forum for two years now. If there is one thing I know. People with guns save more lives and prevent more crimes the people with guns cause. In 2008 I started a forum called The Second Amendment Works. It contains link to articles where the almost victim was able to protect themselves with the use of a firearm. There are over 250 legitimate articles in there right now. That is over 250 people that were not raped and victimized. That is also over 250 bad guys that learned a lesson. You play, you just might pay. Anybody that thinks guns are the root of every crime they are used in is just plain out of touch. If a gang member wants to kill, they will. With any weapon available. Knife, Pipe, Screw driver and so on. People need to wake up and start seeing the bigger picture.
RTKBA Forum
Sadly, Codrea has elected to be evasive. The Kates/Mauser paper repeated the same lies as Lott did. And the NAS stated the purpose of their study was not to examine gun control or associated policies.
It is indeed telling Codrea feels the need to lie to support his specious arguments. Even the quote he furnishes states, quite plainly, the purpose of the study was to provide conclusions either way on gun control. Of course, we do have the NAS' executive director plainly stating that fact.
Captain Kidd said: "As it is, there is really nothing stopping criminals from getting firearms because there are no laws against them getting them."
The are plenty of laws all ready on the books (ex. felons firearms disability). Problem is criminals don't obey the laws and don't buy them from legitimate outlets.
I suppose I'm also "evading" pointing out their report discusses INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE CRIMINAL ACCESS TO FIREARMS including Regulating Gun Dealers ("in order for this approach to be effective in reducing gun violence, there must be limited substitution from regulated primary markets to unregulated secondary markets"), Limiting Gun Sales ("in order for this intervention to work—in the sense of reducing violence—not only must the intervention make it more difficult for criminals to get new guns but also the substitution possibilities must be limited"), Screening Gun Buyers (" the Brady act had no direct effect on homicide rates"), Gun Buy-Backs ("it is not surprising that research evaluations of U.S. efforts have consistently failed to document any link between such programs and reductions in gun violence"), Banning Assault Weapons ("A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes")CONTD
CONT'D: District of Columbia Handgun Ban ("yields no conclusive evidence with respect to the impact of such bans on crime and violence.")
Look, I don't have time to jump every time "Captain Kidd" here yanks the chain. If you think I'm lying and he's credible, so be it.
Perhaps Harvard will agree, and publish his critique of the Kates/Mauser paper.
Have all the laws you would like Captain Kidd, they will just get them from mexican drug cartels. How are Mexicos gun laws treating them? If they are having such a problem keeping them out of the hands of their criminal underworld, how will we fair? That sald dressing should be clearing up anytime now.
Lovely to see the anti-rights sock puppet has returned with a more appropriate name, captain kid.
Perhaps kiddie can address the issue as opposed to flinging poo.
Which one of the numerous unconstitutional "gun control" laws will stop "youth" violence? If there isn't one, what law WOULD take care of that problem? Remember, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."
We're waiting cap'n.
Kiddles,
"You have all these laws, and you think they'll save you." Joker.
"Sometimes men just want to watch the world burn." Alfred.
There's some wisdom for you.
David Codrea cannot get his sources right; at some point, one has to wonder if his prevarications are actually cluelessness.
The Kates/Mauser op/ed was published by the Federalist Society under the auspices of Harvard. It wasn't peer-reviewed nor was it a Harvard Univ-sanctioned study or report. The Federalist Society--which has chapters at many US universities--is funded by conservative organs such as the Scaife and Olin Foundations.
IOW, since Codrea cannot baffle you with, you know, he attempts to dazzle you with claims op/ed pieces are actually from Harvard.
Without belaboring the point, Codrea claims he knows what the NAS report said *despite* the exec director of NAS saying otherwise.
Kiddles,
You are an utter coward to hurl insults which assault a man's character from behind an anonymous moniker. In fact it further destroy's everything you say since the person saying those things has no willingness to stake their credibility on them. So either confront David head on in an honest and gentlemanly manner, or STFU.
Kates and Mauser attached their names to the study, thereby staking their reputation on it. You on the other hand, think that people will believe a person who hides behind a mask and just arbitrairily contradicts them. Sorry, I don't believe or listen to people who aren't willing to comment without their reputation on the line. Especially when they just appear one day.
Gee, using a moniker "Steve K" really narrows down the possibilities to several hundred thousand people.
Once more, the Kates/Mauser article is not a study--it is an opinion piece. As to staking their reputations--what reputations? Mauser is a Canadian marketeer and Kates' reputation isn't really too good.
kid, you didn't answer the question. And if you really want to start throwing around accusations maybe you'd like to take a look at 95% of the anti-rights crowd's "studies" funded by the joyce foundation. Just one big discredited by the supreme court pile of toilet paper, as are the continuing "sky is going to fall if X happens" op-eds in the dinosaur gov-media complex.
The simple fact is you can't point to any law or proposed law that would have any impact on "youth violence" and you're tossing out strawmen here in a leftists typical attempt to discredit those opposed to your sick control freak wet dreams.
As to the reputations of either of the folks you seem to despise, we're to take your word on someone's reputation when you pop up from nowhere libeling folks, yeah and I got a bridge to sell ya. Crawl back through the portal to whatever fantasy land you came from. Or feel free to stick around and make David some money. Troll.
Tom: Who cares what your question is? I know I don't.
The topic is youth violence and gun control. Codrea posted an op/ed which mischarcterized ( a nice way of saying "lied about") an NAS study. The op/ed claimed NAS said gun control was unsuccessful. But the NAS executive director stated very plainly the study did not address gun control or associated policies.
Moreover, the NAS looked at firearm education programs--including the NRA's bogus Eddie the Eagle program--not gun control laws or measures.
"Codrea claims he knows what the NAS report said"
"Moreover, the NAS looked at firearm education programs--including the NRA's bogus Eddie the Eagle program--not gun control laws or measures."
So the quotes about dealers and buyers and assault weapons and DC laws were all made up?
From E.W. Colglazier, Exec Director of the NAS:
"Lott's column gave the clear impression that the study was about gun control. It was not. The study was about the quality of the data and research on firearms injury and violence. These data and studies are frequently used by both sides in the debate on gun control. It was the committee's task to make judgments about the quality of this scientific knowledge. The committee was not asked and does not offer any conclusions or comments on gun control policy. "
......
"Firearms violence is a serious problem in the United States. The committee's call for better data and research reflects that thoroughly documented fact. "
As Colglazier makes very clear, the study was not about gun control. He states that on both sides of the debate there is data that supports and refutes the arguments of the other.
So, when Codrea says gun control doesn't work based on this study, he is either lying or ignorant.
" Tom: Who cares what your question is? I know I don't.
The topic is youth violence and gun control."
OK major liar, oh wrong rank, captain liar: who cares what your OPINION of others (who study this) opinion's are. You present yourself as some infallible expert. Yet you can't address the topic of youth violence and gun control, which you yourself admit is the point.
Since there hasn't been a study that was peer reviewed and "authorized" by a learning institute the claim that the sun rises in the east should be thrown out as well. That is your argument, along with calling David, Kates, and Mauser liars while presenting NO evidence to back you up.
Maybe you can point us to YOUR peer reviewed studies published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, or anywhere else or that matter, books you've written, or anything else that would show you have any credibility whatsoever. I'm eagerly waiting to see your studies and credentials.
Are the quotes made up or not?
Kiddles,
I have corresponded with Mr. Codrea a number of times, so he likely understands who Steve K actually is.
Besides, I was criticizing you for coming into a man's place and completely dismissing everything he has said without even truly identifying yourself. If I were to professionally attack someone then I would use my real name and voice my complaint politely, instead of your tactics, which entail anonymously dismissing everything without providing strong counter evidence.
Codrea also mentions the press release (12/16/04) from NAS. Sadly, it exposes David even further:
"The study committee was not asked to address any issues of policy and did not do so. Rather, the committee evaluated the research base on firearms violence and on prevention, intervention, and control strategies. It also explored how new methods of merging scientific findings and data could inform strategies for reducing gun-related crime, suicide, and accidental fatalities. The federal government should support a robust research program in this area, concluded the committee."
On another point, Codrea says there are laws against murder, yet people continue to murder. It sounds as if Codrea wants to repeal murder laws. The wisdom of such logic is highly dubious.
Steve K: I understand your reluctance to reveal your real identity while criticizing others for commenting pseudonymously. It's called 'hypocrisy.' Suffice to say, I don't lose any sleep worrying about what Steve K (if that's your name) thinks.
As for evidence, mine stands up very well. When you have the NAS stating very explicitly their study did not address gun control and Codrea saying it did--I'm very pleased with my side of the argument. In this regard, Codrea reminds me of Marion Barry who once famously remarked, "who are you gonna believe--me or the video tape?"
As for evidence
3rd time: Are the quotes made up?
well "i'd still like to know" aka Kidd, it's called research, go do some.
From the NAS: "The study committee was not asked to address any issues of policy and did not do so. Rather, the committee evaluated the research base on firearms violence and on prevention, intervention, and control strategies."
In the context of firearms, exactly what are "control strategies" if not gun control?
Cranky: It's helpful to read the entire sentence for context, not just a few words, to ascertain meaning. It's better still to read the entire press release or study.
As you quoted, the NAS panel was charged with examining the research base on firearm violence.
I just figured out what the pathetic creature who calls himself Captain Kidd is all about.
Think about it, he hasn't once refuted any of the documentation David has referred to. Instead he impugns David's intelligence, morality, honesty and whatever,even over words and ideas that David never posited but pointed out. The man is fixated on David. He hasn't engaged in any meaningful discussion of ideas, nor has he answered any question at all, some of which he gave rise to. Gave rise is the operative word here.
He is being a spiteful bitch because of his unrequited love for the man he pretends to hate and disapprove. As for his connection to reality, I am sure David has done nothing to encourage this fixation, but hey, Kidd can fantasize anything he wants. So Kidd, pretend someone loves you back. Then STFU.
He's in love with David, in that most unnatural way for most of us and is
Project much "straight"arrow?
Axiom. People do what they do because they can.
Question. How do you keep _____out of the hands of ‘children‘?
Such as…poisons kept in cabinets when their toddlers, alcohol, drugs, pipes, chains, knives, ’guns’ and etc. when they’re older?
Claiming no particular expertise when it comes to ’children’--the most obvious answer is through constant supervision by responsible adults. Without it, they’re lost. All kids need positive role models, standards to live by and up to. Even so, there’s no assurance a ‘child’ will grow into a responsible adult, but the odds are provably significantly increased. ( Politicians, Bankers and certain other of their ilk obvious exceptions )
If nothing else, responsible adult supervision at least keeps ‘children’ in check, hopefully long enough for them to survive their teen years, acquire some sense of values and mature enough to make their own decisions, hopefully correct ones.
I will claim to possess some knowledge about firearms.
On a short list of experiences which teach an individual personal responsibility, personal accountability and demonstrate immediate consequences for certain actions, few if any among them can equal and fewer still can exceed--the lessons learned in being properly taught to safely handle, correctly shoot and care for a firearm.
This simple knowledge seems to be virtually unknown to some, seemingly overlooked or forgotten by others and wholly disregarded by far too many.
I’ve often wondered how many ‘children’ wouldn’t become involved with drugs, gangs, and especially ‘gun crimes’ if they had the benefit of the same instruction with firearms all of us have had.
Since it’s claimed they’re going to get access to firearms anyway, seems only logical to follow the proven advantage of adult supervision and take them to the range on a regular basis.
Why do you keep evading the question about the quotes?
" if they had the benefit of the same instruction with firearms all of us have had."
Big assumption.
Many 'gun rights'-types have no instruction with firearms whatsoever. In fact, most of the organizations advocating the 'gun rights' party line are opposed to any training requirement.
Kidd: "Cranky: It's helpful to read the entire sentence for context, not just a few words, to ascertain meaning. It's better still to read the entire press release or study."
Oh, you mean something such as "Interventions aimed at illegal firearm acquistion" or, maybe "Criminal justice interventions to reduce firearm-related violence?"
No, no "gun control" there. None whatsoever. N
And you are not a fraud, either.
P.S. It's completely unsurprising that the NSA report -- readable in it's entirety here: tinyurl.com/lp6939 comes to no conclusions regarding the success of gun control -- because there is no success to report.
Preventing crime by controlling guns is much akin to "preventing" fire by restricting the use of extinguishers. It does nothing to reduce the danger, but it removes the individual's ability to save one's self.
And that is the substance of David's story, which no one here has been able to successfully refute.
"Many 'gun rights'-types have no instruction with firearms whatsoever."
Proof for his/her statement=ZERO. (S)He means government accredited instruction. Which of course would be a waste of money and create yet another giant unaccountable nightmare of centralized power.
"In fact, most of the organizations advocating the 'gun rights' party line are opposed to any training requirement."
Ah yes, the government has done such a wonderful job setting standards for education and numerous other things. I can also look at all the training for the 1st that is required, such as to speak, to assemble, to practice one's religion...oh wait.
Captain Kidd - a man with much more time on his hands than good sense, like most liberals well focused on non issues, a rather poor speller, addicted to foolishness, given to projecting his specious reasonings onto others: "On another point, Codrea says there are laws against murder, yet people continue to murder. It sounds as if Codrea wants to repeal murder laws. The wisdom of such logic is highly dubious." and patently evasive and disengenuous about his own beliefs. My very strong advice: Don't waste too much time bantering with this guy. He's not likely to learn anything from it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!