Skip to comments.Errors in Huffington Post discussion on gun control
Posted on 01/01/2013 7:49:17 AM PST by marktwain
Paul Heroux has this as part of his post up at the Huffington Post:
Economist John Lott likes to point out that wherever there has been a gun ban we have seen crime increase. Lott has specifically made the point concerning England's 1997 gun moratorium. Unfortunately, this example is a little loose with the statistics. In some countries where an increase in gun homicides followed a gun ban, it was part of an already rising trend, as it was in England. In other cases it followed the ban. In short, there is no causal relationship; the relationship is spurious. Additionally, Lott also said that he did not accept that the US is the leader in gun homicides in the developed world. This flies in the face of the facts.
If you want to see how wrong Mr. Heroux is about this claim on how murder rates changed after the UK handgun ban see the figures available here.
Lott has also noted that the common denominator of the recent mass shootings is that they all occurred in a gun free zone. This implication is that the shooters targeted the zones because they were gun free. This can't and won't be proven, and it is unlikely anyway. First, we know that students all over America carry guns to schools every day, so schools are not really gun free. Second, Fort Hood is a military base with lots of guns, and Virginia Tech is a university with its own police force. Third, there is more reason to believe that the recent mass shootings targeted the people at the locations because of who they were, not because of where they were. The presence or absence of a gun ban is spurious. . . .
There are 41 right-to-carry states. What gun-free zones mean places where law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry concealed handguns. The ban is with respect to law-abiding citizens, not police. Yet, with Fort Hood, soldiers are actually forbidden from carrying around guns on army bases (see here for a discussion). As to the claim that "the recent mass shootings targeted the people at the locations because of who they were, not because of where they were" please see this article.
A significant power of the new media is to debunk lies and promote truth.
Whoa....liberals lying on HP....
Who would have thunk it....!
HP have some if the most brain dead poster on the net...
We are where we are because we have not done as you suggest.
“Yet, with Fort Hood, soldiers are actually forbidden from carrying around guns on army bases...”
Pretty much correct. There were few times when I was allowed to carry a weapon with ammunition. Two cases, when I was a payroll officer and only carried when picking up payroll cash or on the firing range. At other times, I’ve carried a weapon but did not have ammunition. This was for tactical exercises. The Army is a real stickler for keeping weapons and ammunition out of soldiers hands except for combat, training, or special details like payroll or some guards. It’s mostly for safety reasons.
” In some countries where an increase in gun homicides followed a gun ban, it was part of an already rising trend, as it was in England. In other cases it followed the ban. In short, there is no causal relationship; the relationship is spurious. “
In other words guns don’t cause violent crime.
John Lott always backs his pro gun discussions with actual statistics and logic. He is the gold standard as to refuting the lies about guns and violence in America. The left wants to shift the discussion to guns when lack of personal responsibility and morals are involved. We deplore violence and know it is hard to control, yet a good person with a gun is sometimes needed to confront a bad person who is doing bad with a gun or other lethal weapon.
Huh? What sort of argument is that?
Second, Fort Hood is a military base with lots of guns,
And the area where the shootings occured was a gun free zone for all but Military Police.
[A]nd Virginia Tech is a university with its own police force.
Again, the students weren't allowed to carry, making it a gun-free zone.
Company targeting police, bounty hunters with safer ammo
Published January 01, 2013
Sadly for us, the majority of Americans simply assume that since he uses the language of logic, his words must then make sense. Liberals also use the rhetorical question to great success with most Americans, as if it is "logic", when nine times out of ten, there ARE actual answers to their questions, and they almost always point to the opposite conclusion that they are conveying to the untrained minds. For example, "Why haven't we banned guns yet?!?" will be met with a cacophony of "ikr!!!"... when the actual answers to this question ("2nd Amendment" and "personal safety" and "the history of gun control before mass murder" etc) are rarely mentioned... and if mentioned, are usually met with VERY confused expressions, from listener and speaker alike. They assume that any rhetorical question must be the end of the discussion. They get the deer-in-the-headlight look when they hear an answer to a question. They know tha questions usually get answers... but the speaker gave a question that isn't supposed to get an answer... and they mull over that confusion, while the actual potential for making the intellectual connection between question and answer flutters away like a butterfly in a field.
"My dream of safer guns and safer bullets is finally coming to pass."
(Even if the story is just about another less-leathal 12 gauge shotgun round...)
Wow, finding a lie on HuffPo, that’s like finding a freakin’ four-leafed clover. Thanks marktwain.
Same with me. As an E-5 I had CQ duty (Charge of Quarters) twice during my tour. This means that I sit in place of the Commanding Officer during night time hours while he is unavailable.
During only one of these times was I armed. I reported for duty and was presented with an M-16 and ammunition. It wasn't even my own rifle. I found out later that the reason for the rifle was that the currency was being changed the next day and the safe was full of money.
The other time I was unarmed and a soldier who had been doing some serious drinking came into the office yelling that he was going to kill the CO because the soldier had been confined to base.
The soldier was very fortunate that I was unarmed, as otherwise I would have to have confronted him with the M-16. I wouldn't have had a choice as I couldn't afford to have him out-muscle me and end up with the gun.
AS it turned out, I grabbed the soldier in a headlock and began entwining my legs with his in order to bring him to the ground. All during this time the soldier was yelling at the CO who had been awakened by the commotion.
It was a very surrealistic experience wrestling this guy to the ground while he and the CO carried on a heated conversation as if I wasn't even there.
Interesting story. Reminds me of a time in Korea. We had a real disgrace of a SSG assigned to the unit for a couple of months. Three days before his rotation back to the states, he got into a tiff with the unit CO. The unit CQ reported he’d been heard in the barracks threating to kill the CO. Next day he asked the CO to approve his purchase of a shotgun and shells from the PX which was, of course, disapproved.
My wife was a big fan of the TV series "M*A*S*H". She didn't care at all for the movie. It was difficult for me to explain that I didn't like the TV series because the movie was so realistic and the TV series was toned-down to the point of being a fairy tale.
My ex-wife was a big fan of the TV show too. Bout the only thing I liked about the show was Captain Flagg and Colonel Potter. Now, Potter was a perfect fit for a Colonel. Loved the line “Don’t make my eagles mad.” I could see him as a real Colonel.
I’m a BIG M*A*S*H fan, and watch about an hour of reruns a day. I feel like the cast members are members of my family. But Capt (or Col) Flagg is one of the funniest ones in it. I wish he’d had more roles.
My dad was in the Army in 1943 and personally prevented the enemy from overrunning a medical services tent in Palo Alto, California.
In later years, he was very much a fan of documentaries like "Victory at Sea". He educated me about World War II and the Holocaust. Somehow the light-hearted portrayal of Nazis in "Hogan's Heroes" seems an insult to all those who perished in the concentration camps and the crematoria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.