Gun lovers are in severe denial. Actually, even moderate-conservatives like David Brooks are too -- since
I am currently working with university based colleagues to compile and statistically analyze what will be far and away the most comprehensive comparison of socioeconomic conditions between 1st world countries. Around four dozen indicators and correlates. The plot I included with click here is from that project (maybe I've missed it, but I have not seen such a plot, which is odd because it is an obvious thing to do). What the plot shows is that the only western nation with lots and lots of guns, that would be ours, has a sky high level of homicide of the rate expected in badly governed underdeveloped countries. There is no example of a prosperous democracy that has low levels of homicide that has limited gun regulations. Not one. In every 1st world country with less than 30 guns per 100 persons achieved by strong firearms regulations homicide levels are remarkably low. In every one. All western democracies with tight regs on heaters has little in the way of murder. Even in
One commentator thought he scored a big point by pointing out that American homicide rates are in decline. But they are in decline in other western countries too, so we are still far worse off. And according to surveys gun ownership is in strong decline in
Another commentator tried to pull the classic slight of hand trick of comparing the low homicide rate in gun friendly
Fact is there is no prosperous country with a large urban population and lots of lightly regulated guns that is not afflicted by a shameful amount of bloody death, so to think that a nation can combine limited gun regs plus lots of firearms like we are trying to do with low homicide levels is completely unsubstantiated, wildly speculative, and almost certainly wrong. If the
The NRA and its allies have refused to acknowledge these patently obvious truths. Same for the pro-gun commentators. That's because they are trying to sell
Another commentator tried to challenge the characterization of semi-automatic pistols as weapons of mass destruction. The guy who invented the heavy machine gun as a military weapon intended to destroy masses of men was Hiram Maxim. He tried to apply his technology to automate military pistols, but the technology was not quite ready. One of the first effective semi-automatic pistols, the Mauser C96, was a military weapon widely used in the South African War at the turn of the century. The famed Colt 45 1911 was adopted as the standard US Army pistol for most of the 1900s. Standard magazines for the Glock range from 10-17 rounds depending on the model, enough to kill and maim 10-17 people in a few seconds. The Glock will place a round within an inch of the aim point of a reasonably skilled criminal's shooting range of 15-30 ft, especially if they are using a laser pointer to target the head or heart. That's a weapon of mass destruction.
Will the gun crowd start to urge the law abiding citizen to armor up as the arms race they are pushing one way or another progresses? Of course they will. It's just like the battleships I am interested in, the guns and armor piercing rounds got better so the armor got thicker until you got the Yamato s with 16.1 inches of sloped face hardened steel side plate. Now the criminals like the
Critics claim there is no way I could know what the founders wanted since I was born a tad late to talk to them. So how is it that the gun adorers go on about the founders were all for all in the 21st century packing semi-automatics? Time travel, perhaps? The quotes by some founders one commentator cites do not explicitly state that individuals should be carrying heat on a regular basis for self protection, they could fall in the constitutional context of guns for the militia purposes described in the 2nd Amendment. Nor did the commentator conduct an explicitly worded survey of the founders opinions. What we do know is that the Bill of Rights does not state, like some state constitutions do, that Americans have a right to bear arms on an individual basis for self protection. It's just not in the language, and the founders could have put that there if that was what they really intended. It's called being clear and explicit. And the uberfounder, George Washington, had no qualms when president in sending the army to suppress brewing insurrections by armed citizens. You know, the Whiskey Rebellion and the like at least some of us remember learning about in grade school. Did that make him a tyrant?
And what is the hyperbolic nonsense about the citizens of nations with the common-sense gun controls that consistently suppress murder over the years being slaves? You are ranting. The Aussies, Canucks, Brits and Finns are not slaves. They are voting citizens of democracies that have chosen to do what is needed to keep their inhabitants free of the fear that stalks much of
While all of the pro-gun comments were defective, some were nothing more than adolescent, factless tirades that risk hurting the cause they represent with their primitive inanity. That sort of keyboard ideological outburst does nothing to convince objective intelligent readers. All you folks have to do to offer a plausible argument is show us an advanced democracy were civilians are as heavily armed as Americans, where the guns are as lightly controlled, and where murder is a rare as in western Europe and Canada. But you don't because you can't. The 1st world has proven that governments do a better of protecting their citizens over the long haul with intelligently crafted, preventative gun regulations than by allowing the citizens to gun up like soldiers. That's why the streets and homes of armed American are splattered with so much more blood than the rest of the west. And that's a crime.