There is a solution to the Gun control issue that no one ever mentions.

Ikaria · Apr 19, 2004

Jeremiah the Bullfrog said:
Please enlighten me as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

Read carefully:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant
-- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

Gun control is designed to prevent harm to others. Mill's statement therefore endorses the exercise of power over a member of a civilized community (even if it's against his will) in order to ensure that harm is not done to others by the use of firearms.

You might want to get yourself a new quote.

Also, look at the other quote in my signature.

I have - and I like it a lot. One of the best quotes around, IMHO.

What's your point?

Michael0701 · Apr 19, 2004

Someone mentioned this earlier, crossbows. They sure can kill. How about a good ole baseball bat, or a favorite of a certian motorcycle "club", the ball peen hammer. Why just the other day someone used a soup can to bash the heads in of an elderly couple here in Philly. Ban firearms for what? To stop violence? Laughable, man will continue to kill man even if he has to go and find a nice rock. There is no "solution" for that and as for laws (concerning the possesion of firearms), well we have them, now if only the courts would enforce them.

Jeremiah the Bullfrog · Apr 19, 2004

Gun control is designed to prevent harm to others.

Designed to prevent harm, and preventing harm are two very different things.

Mill's statement therefore endorses the exercise of power over a member of a civilized community (even if it's against his will) in order to ensure that harm is not done to others by the use of firearms.

Therein lies the problem. How does gun control ensure that harm is not done to others by the use of firearms? Can you tell me with 100% certainty, that if posession of firearms was banned in Washington State that I would be absolutely certain never to be harmed by one?

Ikaria · Apr 19, 2004

Michael0701 said:
Someone mentioned this earlier, crossbows. They sure can kill. How about a good ole baseball bat, or a favorite of a certian motorcycle "club", the ball peen hammer. Why just the other day someone used a soup can to bash the heads in of an elderly couple here in Philly. Ban firearms for what? To stop violence? Laughable, man will continue to kill man even if he has to go and find a nice rock. There is no "solution" for that and as for laws (concerning the possesion of firearms), well we have them, now if only the courts would enforce them.

If baseball bats, ball peen hammers, crossbows and rocks are so darned effective, why don't we save ourselves a lot of money and start carrying them around?

Heck, if it comes to that, think of how much we'd save by selling off the army's rifles and replacing them with baseball bats, ball peen hammers, crossbows and rocks!

Any takers...? :wave:

ThePhoenix · Apr 19, 2004

Michael0701 said:
Someone mentioned this earlier, crossbows. They sure can kill. How about a good ole baseball bat, or a favorite of a certian motorcycle "club", the ball peen hammer. Why just the other day someone used a soup can to bash the heads in of an elderly couple here in Philly. Ban firearms for what? To stop violence? Laughable, man will continue to kill man even if he has to go and find a nice rock. There is no "solution" for that and as for laws (concerning the possesion of firearms), well we have them, now if only the courts would enforce them.

Even worse, Kevlar is about as much use as tinfoil against a crossbow or a baseball bat.

Crossbows aren't used more because they're pretty bulky.

Beastt · Apr 19, 2004

Ikaria said:
Gandhi chucked the British out of India without using a gun. Why do you think that was?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Achieving your goal without force is always preferrable but not always an option.

Ikaria · Apr 19, 2004

Jeremiah the Bullfrog said:
Designed to prevent harm, and preventing harm are two very different things.

True, but my point still stands.

Therein lies the problem. How does gun control ensure that harm is not done to others by the use of firearms? Can you tell me with 100% certainty, that if posession of firearms was banned in Washington State that I would be absolutely certain never to be harmed by one?

OK, I phrased that badly.

We can't ensure that no harm is done to others by the use of firearms because even if we ban them outright, wave a magic wand and make them all disappear, you can be sure that some darn fool would start sneaking them into the country again as soon as possible. (He'd be a Southerner, most likely.)

But on the other hand, the reality is that it's virtually impossible to ensure that the intended aim of a law is always successfully achieved, regardless of what that law is. At the end of the day, laws are merely an attempt to regulate society in such a way as to make life a better place for everybody. Can we ensure that they'll always fulfill their purpose? No we can't, because human beings are ornery critters who'll always end up breaking the law one way or another.

But we can still try - and whether you like it or not, Mill's principle does indeed endorses the exercise of power over a member of a civilized community (even if it's against his will) in order to reduce gun crime by introducing gun control legislation.

Ikaria · Apr 19, 2004

Beastt said:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Relevance? :wave:

Gandhi still advocated a peaceful solution. He wasn't in favor of using violence to achieve political aims.

ThePhoenix · Apr 19, 2004

Ikaria said:
Relevance?

Gandhi still advocated a peaceful solution. He wasn't in favor of using violence to achieve political aims.

Wait a second, he shows that your example is at least partially biased (India threw the British out without arms because they didn't have any) and the best you have is a comment and a wave?

Ikaria · Apr 19, 2004

ThePhoenix said:
Wait a second, he shows that your example is at least partially biased (India threw the British out without arms because they didn't have any) and the best you have is a comment and a wave?

What?

It's "partly biased" because India didn't have any arms? How does that work?

I'm making two points and you've successfully missed both of them.

Here they are again:

(1) Gandhi threw the Brits out of India without resorting to violence. (And don't tell me that they couldn't use violence because they didn't have guns. People are more than capable of being violent without guns.) Therefore, it is possible to achieve political emancipation without the use of firearms.

(2) Gandhi was morally opposed to the use of violence to effect political change. Therefore, he would not have used force even if his people had been armed!

Kelly · Apr 19, 2004

Ikaria said:
What? It's "partly biased" because India didn't have any arms? How does that work?

I'm making two points and you've successfully missed both of them.

Here they are again:

(1) Gandhi threw the Brits out of India without resorting to violence. (And don't tell me that they couldn't use violence because they didn't have guns. People are more than capable of being violent without guns.) Therefore, it is possible to achieve political emancipation without the use of firearms.

(2) Gandhi was morally opposed to the use of violence to effect political change. Therefore, he would not have used force even if his people had been armed!

To say that Gandhi 'threw the Brits out' is a bit short sighted. There were many violent actions (both sides) that lead up to India gaining independence.

The 1857 rebellion (very bloody revolt when Indian troops beleived their ammunition was cased in pig fat - and at that time you had to bite off the end of the casing to load), World War I and II (draining Great Britain's resources immensly), the unfortunate Amritsar Massacre.

ThePhoenix · Apr 19, 2004

Ikaria said:
What? It's "partly biased" because India didn't have any arms? How does that work?

Think about it: If you don't have weaponry exactly how are you going to have the option of a violent solution? The option doesn't exist!

I'm making two points and you've successfully missed both of them.

Ad Hom again. Lets not resort to a schoolyard level here.

Here they are again:

(1) Gandhi threw the Brits out of India without resorting to violence. (And don't tell me that they couldn't use violence because they didn't have guns. People are more than capable of being violent without guns.) Therefore, it is possible to achieve political emancipation without the use of firearms.

Please. Violence without guns? Sure, if your enemies don't have guns it works. Rocks are not useful against machine guns.

(2) Gandhi was morally opposed to the use of violence to effect political change. Therefore, he would not have used force even if his people had been armed!

He would not have. But would India as a whole have? Ghandi became the moral leader for the non-violent solution, but containing violent elements was a constant problem (Ghandi was assassinated by a violent element within the movement). How much more violent would the movement have been if they'd had access to the weapons necessary to be violent, and how much sooner would the British have left India?

Jeremiah the Bullfrog · Apr 19, 2004

Gun control is designed to prevent harm to others. Mill's statement therefore endorses the exercise of power over a member of a civilized community (even if it's against his will) in order to ensure that harm is not done to others by the use of firearms.

What about the use of firearms to prevent harm to others? If for example, someone has a Colt Gov't in their car, and a carjacker leaps into the car at a stop light and then, that person simply brandishes the pistol and the car jacker leaps out of the car. Harm was prevented, to both the car jacker and the person whose car was about to be stolen. Take for example the city of Kennesaw, Georgia.

But we can still try - and whether you like it or not, Mill's principle does indeed endorses the exercise of power over a member of a civilized community (even if it's against his will) in order to reduce gun crime by introducing gun control legislation.

If you know that the law is destined to fail anyway, then what is the point? Also, an individual with a firearm can prevent harm from being done to others. I can give an example where the opposite was the case. In Kennesaw, Georgia people are required to own a firearm. Crime dropped.

But on the other hand, the reality is that it's virtually impossible to ensure that the intended aim of a law is always successfully achieved, regardless of what that law is. At the end of the day, laws are merely an attempt to regulate society in such a way as to make life a better place for everybody. Can we ensure that they'll always fulfill their purpose? No we can't, because human beings are ornery critters who'll always end up breaking the law one way or another.

All laws are an attempt to make society a better place?

Gunny · Apr 19, 2004

Jeremiah the Bullfrog said:
What about the use of firearms to prevent harm to others?

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/schulman-kellerman.html

http://www.wagc.com/25mill.html

http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html

oldrooster · Apr 19, 2004

Ghandi did not throw the Brits out, Britain was too poor to hold on to her empire.

Beastt · Apr 20, 2004

It's always interesting that people seem so destined to repeat the events of history yet are often so unlikely to learn from the lessons of history. I can't personally vouch for each of the below statements. I assume a reasonable degree of bias may be incorporated in their wording. But I think that overall, the lesson should be clear.

· In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 Million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded Up and exterminated.

· Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century.

· July 1, 2003, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. RESULTS: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies Are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with Firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures were showing a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such a monumental effort and expendediture in "ridding society of guns."

So frequently the tendency is to misplace the intent on inanimate objects. Objects are incapable of intent. If you wish to stop the action of individuals, allow the blame to fall on the animate, not the inanimate. Removing a weapon does nothing about removing the intent. As long as the intent exists, the problem persists. This removal of the inanimate agent has lead to prohibition, the drug war and the ongoing polarization of people concerning what some like to call "gun control". It is not gun control. It is the removal of a freedom. In fact, all laws are little more than the removal of a freedom once it has been decided that it is a dangerous freedom to allow into the hands of the common man. Should we then automatically assume that what we can not entrust to the common man, we can entrust to government? Those men who helped to form our government warned us against this action.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve and receive neither liberty nor safety..." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- U. S. Constitution, "Amendment II"

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" -- Patrick Henry

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (1774-1776), quoting from "On Crimes and Punishment," by criminologist Cesare Beccaria (1764)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -- Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, (1787 - 1788)

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes it is said that a man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?" -- Thomas Jefferson

"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." -- Thomas Jefferson

Maybe... just maybe, they knew what they were talking about. And again... maybe, those in opposition to the ideas put forth by the founding fathers in the creation of the United States, are simply adverse to the idea of America and American freedoms. Can you really consider yourself to be a patriotic American when you wish to undermine one of the freedoms obviously held so dear by those who built the safe-guards against loss of control over government?

Complete safety can never be achieved but, without extreme caution, all freedom can be lost in its pursuit.

:wave:

Ikaria · Apr 20, 2004

Jeremiah the Bullfrog said:
What about the use of firearms to prevent harm to others? If for example, someone has a Colt Gov't in their car, and a carjacker leaps into the car at a stop light and then, that person simply brandishes the pistol and the car jacker leaps out of the car. Harm was prevented, to both the car jacker and the person whose car was about to be stolen. Take for example the city of Kennesaw, Georgia.

Sorry, but it's a simple fact that guns are most frequently used to commit crimes and harm people than to prevent crime and protect people. Case closed.

If you know that the law is destined to fail anyway, then what is the point?

That's not what I said. I said that people will always break laws but that's not reason enough to say "OK, we won't make a law about that." And just because somebody has broken a law doesn't mean that it has failed.

All laws are an attempt to make society a better place?

Strictly speaking no, because some laws relate to the legislation of banking, trade regulations, etc. and other boring stuff like that.

But the purpose of "the rule of law" (which we inherited from the British) is to provide a stable, regulated society and the purpose of regulating society with laws is to make it a better place.

Ikaria · Apr 20, 2004

Beastt said:
It's always interesting that people seem so destined to repeat the events of history yet are often so unlikely to learn from the lessons of history. I can't personally vouch for each of the below statements. I assume a reasonable degree of bias may be incorporated in their wording. But I think that overall, the lesson should be clear.

· In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 Million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded Up and exterminated.

· Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century.

Straw man. None of these were democratic nations. In every case, it was not the result of gun control but despotism and an absence of the rule of law. Not only that, but none of these nations ever had an equivalent of the 2nd (so their citizens never had the opportunity to be armed in the way that US citzens are today) and in most cases, the citizens were too poor to purchase firearms anyway!

I should also point out that these genocides occurred in societies exhibiting severe social, economic, and political turmoil. Two of the nations presented here (Ottoman Turkey and Nazi Germany) were facing an actual or impending foreign war. The remaining five resulted from internal political and racial/ethnic hostilities.

Gun control doesn't even come into the picture.

In order to make some kind of point, you need to show a case where a Western, democratic industrialized nation insstituted gun control legislation and immediately followed it up with wholescale slaughter.

Good luck!

· July 1, 2003, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. RESULTS: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies Are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with Firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures were showing a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such a monumental effort and expendediture in "ridding society of guns."

I have debunked this lunacy before and I'll do it again.

Melbourne - The US National Rifle Association (NRA), led by actor Charlton Heston, and other pro-gun groups are actively promoting misinformation on the results of Australia's tough Uniform Agreement on Gun Laws, adopted by all States and Territories following Martin Bryant's April 28 1996 rampage and massacre of 35 people at Port Arthur, Tasmania.

"This is the last act of a desperate organisation," says Gun Control Australia (GCA) Spokesperson Randy Marshall.

"The facts being circulated in print and now electronic media are wrong, incomplete, unsubstantiated and designed to create panic among pro-gun supporters both within and outside the United States," Mr Marshall says. "They are insulting to Australia, and dangerously misleading."

Citing a "crime wave" in Australia since the new laws were adopted, the NRA and others have apparently chosen to take evidence from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) interpretations of the true facts, painting a story of increasing assaults, increased break-ins, higher homicide rates and a general reduction in public safety Australia wide. The cause? A disarmed populace, left defenceless by a worldwide "left-wing" conspiracy to confiscate weapons.

"Worst of all, this misinformation ignores the remarkably good news coming both from Australia and Canada - two countries where the benefits of tighter gun controls have saved thousands of lives and made significant improvements in public safety in recent years.

"According to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 1998, Australian gun deaths decreased by 110 (26%) between '97-and '98; 194 (38%) between '96 and '98; and 369 (more than 55%) between '88 and '98. Within these figures, gun homicides are down proportionately.

"Canadian gun death rates are down about 40% from a 1977 high, following tougher gun laws introduced in that country in 1977, 1991 and 1996," Mr Marshall says.

"The degree of deception being practised by the NRA and others suggests that pro-gun groups are desperate to stop the perceived loss of their 'rights' to uncontrolled gun ownership and use, threatened by Australia's successes and recent US milestones such as the Smith & Wesson Company's concession to make their guns safer, more traceable, with enhanced in-built child-proofing," Mr Marshall notes.

GCA has received several similar e-mails from the US during the past six months, all echoing a recent "Guns & Ammo" Magazine article by Senator H.L. Richardson (Retired) which appeared in the Jan/Feb 2000 issue of the best-selling US gun magazine.

Aside from a host of factual errors (including a description of "Mr" Meg Lees of the Australian Democrats as the leader of "a small but vocal group of hard leftists") more serious misinformation in the pieces include the following claims, with correct data provided from Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology publications:

The claims incorrectly assume that 1997 is the first year after the new gun laws became operative. In 1996-7 the laws were changed. 1998 is the first year statistics can be tested.

Claim 1. Australian homicides are up 3.2% since the new laws.

In 1998, compared to the average of the two years prior to new gun laws becoming operative (1996-1997), gun homicides dropped by 37.8%. Murder by all means dropped 13.7%.

Claim 2. Armed robberies are up by a "whopping" 44% since the new laws.
In fact the rate of armed robbery increase dropped 12% in 1998.

Claim 3. Assaults are up 8.6% since the new laws.
In fact the rate of assaults increase dropped by 4.2% in 1998.

Claim 4. In Victoria there was a 300% increase in homicides following the new laws.
In fact the homicide rate in Victoria dropped by 19.8% in 1998.

Victoria has for many years had the lowest homicide rate of the six Australian states. In three months we will have the 1999 ABS statistics. These will allow the matter to be re-examined.

Let's be straight with what all this means. The American gun lobby will obscure the truth with all the means in its power, the American public will continue to pay a tragic price for this, and American politicians will be held responsible for those tragedies.

For more information contact - GCA Spokesperson RANDY MARSHALL on 0416 22 33 62 (+61 416 22 33 62 international); or GCA President JOHN CROOK on 0415 171 123 (+61 415 171 123 international).

Sources:
RECORDED CRIME AUSTRALIA 1998, AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (ABS)
RECORDED CRIME AUSTRALIA 1997, ABS
CRIME & SAFETY AUSTRALIA 1999, ABS
HOMICIDE IN AUSTRALIA 1989-96 (1997), AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY (AIC)
VIOLENT DEATHS AND FIREARMS IN AUSTRALIA - DATA & TRENDS 1996, AIC
FIREARM DEATHS - AUSTRALIA 1980-1995 (1997), ABS
CRIME AND JUSTICE IN AUSTRALIA, MUKHERJEE & GRAYCAR 1997, AIC

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=32

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. :wave:

Gunny · Apr 20, 2004

Beastt said:
It's always interesting that people seem so destined to repeat the events of history yet are often so unlikely to learn from the lessons of history.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve and receive neither liberty nor safety..." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- U. S. Constitution, "Amendment II"

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" -- Patrick Henry

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (1774-1776), quoting from "On Crimes and Punishment," by criminologist Cesare Beccaria (1764)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -- Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, (1787 - 1788)

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes it is said that a man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?" -- Thomas Jefferson

"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." -- Thomas Jefferson

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20020318.htm

http://www.jpfo.org/genocide.htm

http://www.mcsm.org/genocide.html

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/kopel.htm

Gunny · Apr 20, 2004

[size=+2]The Bias Against Guns[/size][size=+1]Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong [/size]By John R. Lott, Jr.Published: March 2003

Praise for The Bias against Guns

"If you want the truth the anti-gunners don't want you to know... you need a copy of The Bias Against Guns." --Sean Hannity, of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes

"John Lott's thoughtful study should be read by everyone interested in the control of violent crime, and protection against terrorism." --Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"John Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, created quite a stir among the gun-control romantics, whose expressive advocacy involves neither sound analytics nor empirical evidence. In this follow-on book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott continues the struggle, and responds to his critics, motivated by his strong conviction that analysis and evidence must, finally, win the day." --James Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"Another major contribution by John Lott to the evidence on the effects--good and bad--of gun-control legislation. An important supplement to his More Guns, Less Crime."--Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"As a gun-toting rock 'n' roll star all my life, I have lived firsthand the outrageous media and Hollywood bias against good guys with guns forever. I laugh in their face. John Lott is my academic hero." --Ted Nugent, recording artist and author of Kill It & Grill It and Gods, Guns, & Rock 'n' Roll

"[Lott] marshals unimpeachable evidence on how the anti-gun crusade, driven by sins of omission and commission, might actually be costing many more lives than it saves. You'll want to have this intellectual ammunition." --Walter E. Williams, economist and syndicated columnist "John Lott is a scholar's scholar and a writer's writer--and his book shows why. That gun ownership might bring social benefits as well as costs is a story we do not often see in the press, and Lott here explores why. With a blend of new data, evidence, and examples, he unpacks the bias against such stories in the media."--J. Mark Ramseyer, Harvard Law School professor

More Information:

http://www.johnlott.org/

There is a solution to the Gun control issue that no one ever mentions.

Well-Known Member

Harley Ridin' Believer!!

Jeremiah the Bullfrog

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dungeon Master

Well-Known Member

Jeremiah the Bullfrog

Guest

Remnant

Thank You Jerry

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Remnant

Remnant

Similar threads