Posted on 10/27/2002 10:11:12 AM PST by vannrox
The Claremont Institute
This is the print version of http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/021020wheeler.html.
America's 80 Million Potential Snipers
By Timothy Wheeler, M.D.
Posted October 23, 2002
As fear grips residents of Virginia and Maryland over the latest sniper murders, gun-control groups see the opportunity to advance their agenda. Never shy about exploiting public horrors, they now clamor for stricter controls on the latest politically incorrect gun: the sporting rifle.
Working to portray weekend target shooters as sharing the spirit of the killer, the Violence Policy Center lays out on its Web site a jeremiad against a "sniper culture." This group is apparently made up of anyone who owns or reads hobby magazines about target rifles chambered for military ammunition. Physicians for Social Responsibility chimes in with a general-purpose condemnation of all firearms, especially those that shoot the popular .223 caliber round. In fact, Physicians for Social Responsibility's Web site breathlessly informs us, .223 bullets are "highly lethal bullets that cause extreme internal damage." Well, yes. Any bullet causes too much damage when used by a vicious murderer on an innocent victim. The .223 is one in a long line of military cartridges adopted for civilian use. Along with the .308 rifle cartridge and the .45 caliber and 9 millimeter pistol cartridges, it is seen on target ranges every weekend. Since these are all arguably high-power, tissue-damaging military bullets, just about all of America's 80 million gun owners are potential snipers, according to the gun banners' logic.
It was inevitable that those who want to ban guns would finally get around to rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Remember "assault weapons"? These hobbyist and collector guns shoot one bullet at a time, as do any other legal firearms. But their black metal and plastic military look made them an easy target for gun control demagogues. Hence the assault-weapon bans of the 1990s.
And how about "pocket rockets" and "junk guns"? The clunky assault weapons were too big and powerful, the gun banners said. But these compact handguns were too little and easily concealed. So they, too, had to be demonized. This deception paved the way for several state laws further restricting citizens' access to guns suitable for self-defense.
So far the Violence Policy Center and Physicians for Social Responsibility have not produced a list of guns they do approve of. Or perhaps they don't approve of any, and would like to ban them all. If so, why can't they be honest and state their true goal of a total gun ban, once and for all?
The answer comes from the gun banners themselves. In a letter to The Journal of the American Medical Association, public health gun grabber Dr. Jeremiah Barondess and his colleagues in New York City wrote that ideally all handguns would be banned, but such a ban was not yet politically feasible.
The writers therefore proposed a raft of lesser restrictions, all of which would make owning guns more difficult for average Americans.
The Violence Policy Center's own Tom Diaz all but admitted on National Public Radio's "Fresh Air," on Jan. 20, 1999 that such half-measures are only steps to the big prize — a total ban. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's blog dated Sept. 17, 2002 quotes Diaz as advocating that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms regulate firearms out of existence. As Diaz puts it, "certainly [BATF] would not allow semi-automatic assault weapons to be manufactured and sold, and we believe that, ultimately, handguns would be phased out through such an agency."
None of this is to suggest that there can be no reasonable limitations on gun ownership. Convicted violent felons and the seriously mentally disturbed are reasonably prohibited from having guns. But groups like Violence Policy Center and PSR have left no doubt that they want to disarm America. When they try to tar good citizens as potential serial killers because they own target rifles, we know they are guilty of their own crime-character assassination.
The Washington-area sniper will be caught and imprisoned. Life will return to normal. We will come to view this harrowing episode for what it is — an isolated, bizarre crime in the life of a great and good nation. The lesson we should surely not take is that the sniper is even remotely akin to the average American gun owner.
Timothy Wheeler, M.D., is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute.
© Copyright 2002, The Claremont Institute.
Visit the Claremont Institute at claremont.org.
In a letter to The Journal of the American Medical Association, public health gun grabber Dr. Jeremiah Barondess and his colleagues in New York City wrote that ideally all handguns would be banned, but such a ban was not yet politically feasible.
As Diaz puts it, "certainly [BATF] would not allow semi-automatic assault weapons to be manufactured and sold, and we believe that, ultimately, handguns would be phased out through such an agency."
When a person or activist group chooses irrationality over reason, chooses dishonesty over honesty, chooses false context or partial context over full-context the numbers and statistics they use to support their claims -- having failed on reason, honesty and full context -- will be presented irrationally, dishonestly and with false context.
What's the solution?
Putting Occam's Razor to work. Occam's Razor is a theory wherein the simplest explanation has the highest probability of being the correct explanation. The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is: "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."
Applying Occam's razor to the gun debate. One example is the question: "How can women better protect themselves from being rapped?" Now, to put that question in context so that a person unfamiliar with firearms can grasp the answer via Occam's Razor:
Simple question for women (Or asked of a man in regards to his wife or daughter's safety.): If your were confronted by a criminal wanting to rape you which would you prefer?
1) A cell phone to dial 911. (Keep in mind that you'd have no defense to stop the rapist from ripping the cell phone out of your hand before you can dial 911.)
2) A hand gun that you were trained on to use in self-defense.
It should be obvious to the reader that honest, full-context statistics can answer the question. But we're dealing with irrationality, dishonesty and false-context/partial-context. Thus the reason for applying Occam's Razor as though both sides had equal weight. This has the added benefit of demonstrating how the side that is being deceptive uses statistics in attempt to defy common-sense logic.
Here's another example of Occam's Razor to work. This example regards the "war on drugs". The question needing an explanation is: Why has the war on drugs by all accounts failed to be won? Answer: That DEA has no motivation to reduce any drug problem. For, it has no desire to reduce its jobs or power.
Further edification:
If a person thinks they've harmed by a person's drug possession they can take the defendant to court and do their best to prove to an impartial jury that they/plaintiff had been hammed by that. The plaintiff would be lucky to convince a third of the jurors that they had been harmed by the defendant -- let alone convince all twelve jurors, which the plaintiff needs to obtain a guilty verdict.
Proof is simple and best expressed by a defendant's lawyer speaking to an impartial jury:
"Clearly the plaintiff and his lawyer have failed by all accounts to show any evidence -- failed to show even one single piece of evidence -- to support his claim that he has been harmed by my client's drug possession. The plaintiff's claim is wholly unsupported.
"Since supporters of the war on drugs have nothing but wholly unsupported claims they chose to harm people that possess drugs by enlisting government agents to initiate force on their behalf. That is, they are truly guilty of that which they falsely accuse others of -- initiating harm against a person that's minding his or her own business."
Sure there was. They were called Indian raids.
.. since most population was armed
Just imagine if the state and federal governments in 1800 asked all citizens to disarm in response to an Indian raid. Pretty stupid. Now consider the terrorism that goes on daily in in Washington D.C. neighborhoods.
, and streets were safe too, so were communities, large cities, small towns, let any gun hater argue this point.
It's fair to remember that Police and Constables are a luxury and convenience that we allowed and began first in communties that could afford it, not because anyone believed the right of law enforcement belonged solely to the Constablry and not to the citizenry.
because they don't make a .60 caliber, thats why.
Funny you should mention this. The UN is working on this very concept. America has to be disarmed before the "rights of the Child"(sexual liberty) can be implemented.
BTW, martini-drinking liberals aren't in season -- yet. ;^)
Put me down for the Hippy. He won't try to run every aspect of my life.
Having a Liberal around would be no better than having an abusive, live-in boyfriend (if one were a woman).
Actually a welcome breath of sanity amidst all the insanity.
With odds like this, I don't understand why we're losing. Most of those 80 million must be either lazy or brainwashed.
Among industrialized nations, England and Wales rank second overall.
Twenty-six percent of British citizens have been victimized by violent crime. Australia leads all industrialized nations with 30 percent of its population victimized. Canada ranks fifth, with 24 percent of its citizens victimized.
What about the United States? Not even in the top-10. In the U.S. 21 percent of the citizens have been victims of a violent crime.
Some more highlights:
Percent of population that suffered "contact crime":
--England and Wales: 3.6 percent
--United States: 1.9 percent
--Japan: 0.4 percent
Rates of burglary with entry (i.e., breaking and entering):
--Australia: 3.9 percent
--Denmark: 3.1 percent
--England and Wales: 2.8 percent
--United States: 2.6 percent
Australia, by the way, leads industrialized nations in burglary rates. There's a reason for this. It's illegal to own a firearm for self defense in Australia. Predators are relatively assured that the homes they break into will not be defended by a homeowner with a gun.
Denmark ranks second in burglaries, and the U.S. ranks eighth. England and Wales lead in car thefts, followed by Australia and France. The U.S. didn't rank in the top 10 in car thefts.
As I said, it's well worth noting that both Great Britain and Australia have some of the most stringent anti-gun laws in the world. The Australian government banned and confiscated thousands of privately-owned guns a few years ago. In Britain, private ownership of handguns was banned after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. Violent crime in both countries has skyrocketed.
Citizens of Britain and Australia can't fight back...so the criminals can run wild without fear of consequences. Americans, on the other hand, fight back--over 7,000 times a day, Americans use guns to defend themselves. That's a significant factor that contributes to our low crime rates compared to the rest of the world.
None of this matters to the anti-gun crowd. They still want your guns. They'll find a way to twist these statistics to show that Britain and Australia's gun bans have worked.
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security !!
Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left-wing anti-gun-nazis' !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
Guns Save Lives !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
FMCDH !!
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.