Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Questions for Gun Controllers - If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it?
National Review Online ^ | December 28, 2012 | Rich Lowry

Posted on 01/02/2013 10:28:13 AM PST by neverdem

In the wake of the Newtown massacre, a call has gone up for a conversation about our gun laws. To that end, here are questions for advocates of gun control who are pushing for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, among other new restrictions, to address school shootings.

What’s the functional difference between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic rifle? You do understand that the answer is “nothing”? An assault weapon is not an automatic weapon. It is semiautomatic like most guns now sold in the United States, i.e., it fires every time the trigger is pulled. What sets it apart is its scary-looking features.

What’s more powerful, the Bushmaster .223 used by Adam Lanza in his slaughter or the average deer-hunting rifle? If the answer is the average deer-hunting rifle — indeed, many states ban the Bushmaster .223 for deer hunting because it is too weak — will you attempt to ban them, too?

What gun law would have stopped Newtown? Please be specific. Adam Lanza’s mother didn’t have a criminal record. Neither did he. If the Bushmaster .223 had been banned, he could have done the same with a semiautomatic rifle. If all semiautomatic rifles were banned — something that would never pass Congress — he could have done the same with a semiautomatic handgun. If high-capacity magazines had been banned, he could have reloaded with smaller magazines.

How many guns are in the United States? The answer is 280 million. In a country with that many guns, how is gun control possibly going to succeed? If you ban a small subset of new guns for sale, what are you going to do about the rest? Let’s say you succeed beyond anything that is remotely possible. Let’s say you somehow stop the new sale of guns altogether and somehow decommission half of existing guns. What are you going to do with the other 140 million guns?

Does the Virginia Tech massacre affect your view of the efficacy of an assault-weapons ban? In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho perpetrated the deadliest shooting in the country’s history. He killed 32 people using two semiautomatic handguns.

Why has violent crime declined in the United States during the past 20 years even as gun ownership has ticked up? According to Gallup, nearly half of adults have a gun on their property, the highest number since 1993. Why has crime declined even as gun-control laws have been liberalized?

The assault-weapons ban passed in 1994 and was in effect for ten years. The paradigmatic school shooting took place at Columbine High School in 1999. Why didn’t the assault-weapons ban prevent it?

There have been hundreds of murders with guns this year in Chicago, where gun laws are restrictive. What new gun laws does the city need to stop the tide of mayhem? There have been hundreds more in New York City, where the mayor is the foremost anti-gun scold in the country. What new gun laws does New York need? 

Why aren’t violent crimes routinely committed at gun ranges teeming with people who own multiple weapons, some of them quite dangerous-looking, and who enjoy shooting them?

Why do gun-free-school laws never succeed in stopping lunatics bent on murder from taking guns to schools?

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre proposed posting armed police officers at schools in his widely derided press conference last week. Would you feel at least a little bit better if an armed officer were guarding your child’s school? Please be honest.

In places where gun laws are the tightest, why do so many people own guns anyway? In your zeal against guns, do you favor stop-and-frisk policies to catch people carrying illegal guns in major urban areas?

In your view, to make a public policy worth pursuing, should it have a discernible connection to its stated goal? Or is it enough that the policy be well-intentioned and opposed by the NRA? Actually, there’s no need to answer that. It’s obvious enough already. 

— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2012 King Features Syndicate



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; secondamendment
What’s the functional difference between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic rifle?

Correction: What’s the functional difference between a so called "assault weapon" and a semiautomatic rifle?

Don't let your opponents frame the debate.

1 posted on 01/02/2013 10:28:15 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
A government policy gives the government power.

If the policy does not work, then the government has an excuse to take on more power.

The End.

2 posted on 01/02/2013 10:29:51 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("More law, less justice." --Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
it makes them feel good.

intentions are all that matter.

3 posted on 01/02/2013 10:30:02 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it?

They're just following the lead of the Drug Warriors.

4 posted on 01/02/2013 10:31:48 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-illinois-bill-to-ban-all-modern-firearms/

Doesn’t look good for IL


5 posted on 01/02/2013 10:32:22 AM PST by rstark56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Questions for Gun Controllers - If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it?

"Controllers."
Think about it a minute.

6 posted on 01/02/2013 10:33:09 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Because the stated intended results are not the true results intended.


7 posted on 01/02/2013 10:36:02 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it?”

The intent is to disarm you so you can be much more easily B-slapped around. Submit to tyranny. They’ve already seen you’ll allow TSA to fondle your package without warrant or probable cause. When you’re disarmed, their fun will really begin.


8 posted on 01/02/2013 10:36:16 AM PST by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Questions for Gun Controllers - If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it?

As with ALL things liberal......because it feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeels good.

9 posted on 01/02/2013 10:37:08 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it?
Applies to Education, transportation, border security, voter verification and balanced budgets as well. :)
10 posted on 01/02/2013 10:37:26 AM PST by vet7279
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Which of these cartridges are more deadly?

.222 Remington
.222 Remington Special
.223 Remington
5.56 MM Remington
.222 Remington Magnum.


11 posted on 01/02/2013 10:40:12 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (REOPEN THE CLOSED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS! Damn the ACLU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WKUHilltopper

Liberals act on EMOTION everytime. Facts have nothing to do with it,


12 posted on 01/02/2013 10:40:28 AM PST by cumbo78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This isn’t about the definition of an Assault Rifle, high capacity magazines, how to stop senseless massacres by madmen, nor is it about Gun Show Loopholes that don’t exist except in the minds of these zealots...these are private sales just like any other private unregulated sale all over the country between two individuals.

This is about FEELINGS that force laws that are intended to CONTROL the will of a free people - individuals - to put down an oppressive government should that be necessary.

They are controllers who want to dictate what you eat, wear, drive, use and (above all) THINK! It is their power and their raison d’etre. Without it, they are just empty-souled automatons that can’t scare up a hint of logic or reason between them.

They want us unarmed so they can stay in power. So we can’t oust them by force when their cheating has subverted the normal voting due-process that has vanished from this country.

That is why we are even discussing these meaningless topics. They are just drawing us into their word trap. If any human condition deserved an immovable stand immutable to none, this one does.


13 posted on 01/02/2013 10:40:50 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“In your view, to make a public policy worth pursuing, should it have a discernible connection to its stated goal?”

But the stated goal is not the real one, even though it’s for the children.


14 posted on 01/02/2013 10:49:06 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You are assuming their intended results are the reduction of violence. It’s not.


15 posted on 01/02/2013 10:50:59 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

That is the only correct answer.


16 posted on 01/02/2013 10:52:57 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Durus

But there are people who still refuse to see that.


17 posted on 01/02/2013 10:58:51 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Because, at its core, Gun Control is not about about controlling crime. It is about controlling people.


18 posted on 01/02/2013 10:59:50 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
intentions are all that matter.

Exactly! We've gone from a society that came to its conclusions by using logic, reason and historical examples into one who always emotes its way through any argument.

19 posted on 01/02/2013 11:11:43 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

at least they’ll get a 5th place ,runner-up, 6 foot tall trophy for ‘most improved’ leftard idea.


20 posted on 01/02/2013 11:24:20 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
What’s the functional difference between a so called "assault weapon" and a semiautomatic rifle?

Q. What is the similarity between Hussein Obama and an "assault weapon"?

A. Whatever in the minds of liberals they want them to be.

21 posted on 01/02/2013 11:26:10 AM PST by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Basically, they are the same, aren’t they? My dad had a Savage in .222 when I was small. You don’t see them much anymore. It puts the fear in Pucsatony Phil. I know that much.


22 posted on 01/02/2013 12:02:04 PM PST by MachIV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MachIV

Almost. The .222 Rem is smaller, the .222 Rem Mag is larger.

The three in the center all the same, just different names. The only difference in the three is the 5.56 has a thicker interior wall and therefore the case capacity for gunpowder is slightly smaller.


23 posted on 01/02/2013 12:12:20 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (REOPEN THE CLOSED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS! Damn the ACLU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Because the stated intended results are not the true results intended.

FR needs a "like" button. after your post, there's little more to add... but I still want to share in expressing the statement, LOL.

24 posted on 01/02/2013 12:24:22 PM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
A government policy gives the government power. If the policy does not work, then the government has an excuse to take on more power. The End.

What you said - the real intended result is less Freedom for the People and gun-related violence has nothing to do with it.

25 posted on 01/02/2013 12:30:44 PM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There is a true assault weapon, and there is a big functional difference. The term is used in the military for an automatic weapon which is used in full automatic mode to provide 'suppression fire' to force the enemy to keep their heads down so that an assault team can attack with minimal return fire.

Don't help the opponents blur the difference between true assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles, which almost all sporting rifles are (but not muzzle-loaders or bolt-action rifles).

26 posted on 01/02/2013 12:51:58 PM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

They are all deadly.............


27 posted on 01/02/2013 1:01:44 PM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: expat2
You know....pardon me, but ALL rifles, ALL pistols, ALL gun's can be called "assault weapons" by the left!

Any gun pointed at me...is an "assault weapon" period.

During WWII most soldiers carried semi-autos.

I've shot pump-shotgun's and semi-autos...Hard to say...in the right hands what's faster.

I own some gun's...I prefer pump or bolt-action long gun's. That's just my preference. I own some pistols too. Some semi-auto...

And they are all "assault weapon's." Don't let the MSM blur the line..............

28 posted on 01/02/2013 1:11:59 PM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

There are two real reasons behind leftists pursuing any policy that demonstrably doesn’t work, and both reasons hide behind the “sounds good” front reason.

For the sheeperal, as you said, it’s all about self-righteousness through advocacy.

For the progressive communist, it’s all about advancing a power agenda behind the guise of “good” policy.


29 posted on 01/02/2013 1:16:51 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: expat2
Don't help the opponents blur the difference between true assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles, which almost all sporting rifles are (but not muzzle-loaders or bolt-action rifles).

One other thing...........I'd bet you more bolt-action rifles are out there...than semi-auto's. I think you are wrong.

30 posted on 01/02/2013 1:17:37 PM PST by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think a better question is why we patriots keep asking questions we already know that answers to?

The gun grabbers want gun confiscation and mass murder. They want to be able to f*ck with law abiding citizens with impunity and not have to worry about the consequences.

We will never get any kind of rational response from people that literally want the power of life and death over the rest of us.


31 posted on 01/02/2013 1:28:54 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They pursue it because they are emotional feminized children. They want mommy and daddy to protect them so they don’t have to deal with that nasty responsibility thing.


32 posted on 01/02/2013 1:34:32 PM PST by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The only ultimate goal is disarming the public. For whatever reasons that may be tossed around, this is really the only one. All the reasons lead to disarming the public.


33 posted on 01/02/2013 2:21:38 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Correction: What’s the functional difference between a so called "assault weapon" and a semiautomatic rifle?

What most of the gun control morons don't seem to understand is: I can assault you with a single shot .22 bolt action.

34 posted on 01/02/2013 3:04:39 PM PST by dearolddad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
[Lowry article] In your zeal against guns, do you favor stop-and-frisk policies to catch people carrying illegal guns in major urban areas? In your view, to make a public policy worth pursuing, should it have a discernible connection to its stated goal? Or is it enough that the policy be well-intentioned and opposed by the NRA?

Hey, hey, hey there, laddie-buck!! None of that, now! You keep your eyes glued firmly on the mcguffin, on the proposition as framed by the grabbers, and never you mind about ulterior motives and what's going on under the table!

Who do you think you are, anyway? A citizen?

35 posted on 01/02/2013 3:58:42 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it?

First, with Liberal/Leftists, you need to determine what the intended results are. What they say they intend, is a lie, boob bait for the bubbas.

36 posted on 01/02/2013 4:12:40 PM PST by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What weapons did the perp use in Newtown? I’ve heard the .223 Bushmaster was recovered from his car. What’s the truth here?


37 posted on 01/02/2013 4:16:20 PM PST by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

I’ve seen two videos of the gun being pulled from the trunk. In one the officer racks it and a shell drops out, clearly a shotgun. The other is blurry but seems to have a magazine like a rifle. I’d go with shotgun in the trunk as long as the clear video is not fake


38 posted on 01/02/2013 4:44:36 PM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

Most in the attic, I suspect.


39 posted on 01/02/2013 8:39:40 PM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
ALL rifles, ALL pistols, ALL gun's can be called "assault weapons"

You are going to lose your bolt-action rifle(s), too, if you keep saying that....

40 posted on 01/02/2013 8:42:53 PM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Its their mental form of Viagra, the twisted pursuit of control and the never ending pursuit of elevation above the working scum class.

America is going to become the land of “The Postman”.


41 posted on 01/02/2013 8:51:43 PM PST by Eye of Unk (A Civil Cold War in America is here, its already been declared.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
For whatever reasons that may be tossed around, this is really the only one. All the reasons lead to disarming the public.

But, but, but surely the disarmament motive is a good one? Entertained only by bien-pensant policy orthothinkers and well-meaning philosophes and public philanthropists .....? ..... Like, say, George Soros? (Never mind that he once used his knowledge to help the Gestapo hunt down Jews in Hungary.)

There's nothing to be afraid of .... what are you afraid of? Warm, fuzzy, humanity-loving Bill Ayers, who once advocated killing 25,000,000 Americans to establish Soviet Communism in America? Come on -- he was just kidding! He had a bad day! You don't think he meant it, do you? Come on, have a drink, and then we'll go talk to Bill, you'll find he's a great guy, salt of the earth, not a mean bone in his body! Ask his wife!

</ massive sarc>

42 posted on 01/02/2013 9:53:13 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it"?

Simple, all proposed anti RKBA legislation is seen as just one more step of an incremental process. When a magazine ban or an AWB fails, as we know it will, it is an excuse to come back for more laws, until all guns are banned.

You end up with bans on Swiss Army knives and sharp pointed steak knives, as in the U.K.

It's time to just say NO!

43 posted on 01/02/2013 10:31:17 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
From the article: "In your view, to make a public policy worth pursuing, should it have a discernible connection to its stated goal?"

I believe that the Supreme Court's Heller decision pointed out that the Second Amendment is not subject to a balancing act. It is sufficient to ask whether the law in question is an infringement. It it is, then the power to pass such a law is denied to the government.

We needn't ask about the "goals" of an infringement.

44 posted on 01/02/2013 11:00:56 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt
If a policy doesn’t produce the intended results, why pursue it?

They're just following the lead of the Drug Warriors.

First, with Liberal/Leftists, you need to determine what the intended results are. What they say they intend, is a lie, boob bait for the bubbas.

So what are the intended results of the War On Drugs (which is championed by many FReepers)?

45 posted on 01/03/2013 7:57:40 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
First, I'm well known here for supporting the re-legalization of drugs, including prescription drugs.

Second, I don't compare FReepers, whose sincerity I accept until proven otherwise. FReepers, who support the war on drugs do so for the reasons they give. They make honest arguments.

My point is that leaders among the liberals, leftists and Statist make arguments for political effect. They do not support policies for the reasons given. Leftwing cannon fodder have believed algore is all about global warming and that algore honestly promotes that policy. They'll still believe him, even as he sells out to Big Arab Oil.

So, I really don't understand you point. And FReepers aren't Leftists and don't act like them, even when I disagree with them.

46 posted on 01/03/2013 6:26:51 PM PST by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt
First, I'm well known here for

There are hundreds of thousands of FReepers; I challenge the claim that any of them except Jim Robinson is "well known."

supporting the re-legalization of drugs, including prescription drugs.

Glad to hear it!

Second, I don't compare FReepers, whose sincerity I accept until proven otherwise. FReepers, who support the war on drugs do so for the reasons they give. They make honest arguments.

They do give reasons - but I have yet to see an honest argument; every debate I've seen with FR drug war supporters ends with them distorting opponents' positions and/or calling them druggies.

FReepers aren't Leftists and don't act like them

I respectfully disagree: when it comes to supporting the War On Drugs, they are and do.

47 posted on 01/04/2013 8:05:02 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

You are a zealot.


48 posted on 01/04/2013 6:59:55 PM PST by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt
every debate I've seen with FR drug war supporters ends with them distorting opponents' positions and/or calling them druggies.

You are a zealot.

Can you point to a specific drug-policy exchange on FR that doesn't fit the pattern I noted? Or are you just hewing to the FR 11th Commandment?

49 posted on 01/06/2013 1:26:53 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson