Invincible Ignorance of "gun control" advocates (legal, heroin, weapons)

[Little-Acorn]

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?

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

Invincible Ignorance - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

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.

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.

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.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[NVplumber]

Verily...the rabbit breed shrieks for government protection every time a shadow falls over them. I cannot bring myself to have an ounce of respect for those who wish to cower in quaking fear and let the wolves ravage the flocks.
Human beings are predators. Some of our predators are worse than others. And now, our society has a new class of animal. The Cleabolds and Lanzas. Downtrodden bullied and ostracized they find a power for retribution in combat videogames and realize this van carry over into reality.
For a brief moment in time the skulking rat becomes a prowling tiger. Their own death never enters their mind. The rush is 20to times more than heroin and crack as they crush their oppressiors. Our own culture and stereotypes create these rabid animals....and we should point the finger at firearms? Some dogs just go bad. Kick any critter enough and sooner or later they snap and turn mean. Yes....I am saying that society is to blame. Not guns. Its sad really. Kids like Lanza get kicked and abused, tossed out to the fringes, freindless and alone. Jeered at, shunned, called every imaginable name, and we blame the gun, not ourselves, when they pick up said weapon and go spare.
A weapon is a means to an end, a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. It does as its operator commands and fufills their purpose without question. You cant legislate someones breaking point.

[Little-Acorn]

It's as much our fault as anyone else's, for repeatedly re-electing the gun-haters who have failed so miserably at protecting us from these mass murderers.

[Little-Acorn]

We don't need so much to understand what's in the minds of these insane murderers, as we need to know what prevents their killing people.

[Little-Acorn]

Millions of kids get bullied and abused.

Millions don't grab guns and start shooting people.

Lanza did, because there was something broken in his head. Not because he'd been bullied or abused.

Cracking down on bullying and abuse may be a nice thing to do. But it's not going to reduce the number, or degree, of mass shootings.

It's time to start looking at: What has caused these mass murderers to STOP killing people? They all (eventually) did, you know. And often, they decided NOT to kill people at one place or time, and decided to do it at some other place and time. For the ones who made such decision, what caused them to NOT do it at the first place they thought of?

When we start examining THOSE question, then we will start approaching solutions that will reduce or prevent these mass shootings.