http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html

Quote :

"Myths About Gun Control By John Stossel October 19, 2005 Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people. "Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law. Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth. I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not." "There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun." Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it. A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them." What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!" In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime. Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year. And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "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" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia. What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people." "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.""

The Second Amendment and firearm ownership is the last protection against common criminals and a tyrannical government. Banning guns would create a field day for common criminals and would create the condition for government to violate the rights of the people without fear of resistance.

10/24/2005 9:15:26 AM

well here's one thing he's not bat-shit crazy about

10/24/2005 9:22:32 AM

Gun control ~= banning guns.

10/24/2005 9:30:02 AM

tell that to the law abiding citizens of england and australia

10/24/2005 9:37:33 AM

so does this mean i can have a bazooka?

10/24/2005 1:57:58 PM

yea, i think that it is time to get some guns

lots of guns

10/24/2005 2:35:06 PM

[quote=salisburyboy]The Second Amendment and firearm ownership is the last protection against common criminals and a tyrannical government.[/quote]

That line says it all. I'm a left-leaning moderate but I fully support the right to bear arms. The framers of the constitution wanted us to have the right to own arms because of a few reasons: living on the frontier, worries of Indian attacks, and most importantly, as stated in the declaration of independence, it's every citizen's responsibility to take action against a tyrannical government. The right to bear arms is to guarantee our ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. See, not all lefties are braindead 8)

10/24/2005 2:47:46 PM

a few of us are making it sound like gun control laws are partially a government plot to keep us from overthrowing them as they institute their own little nazi transition.

i also dont see why gun bans on things like assault weapons really matters for self defense or the like. seems like we're just making too broad of statements concerning all gun control.

[Edited on October 24, 2005 at 4:44 PM. Reason : i was gonna say the first part was salisbury-esque until i realized that he was the one who postedit]

10/24/2005 4:43:48 PM

It doesn't matter why gun rights are in the BoR. It's in there, so we must uphold it.

That's not to say we can't regulate them. I don't think anyone would argue that we can't.

[Edited on October 24, 2005 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2005 4:50:14 PM

tell that to the NRA

10/24/2005 4:52:28 PM

the sheer number means you can't regulate them. well you can, but you'd only be regulating the citizens that are law abiding to begin with.

and that's pissing into the wind.

10/24/2005 4:52:56 PM

because 0 criminals start as law-abiding citizens.

10/24/2005 7:10:39 PM

Because if you can't get 100% if the offenders it just isn't worth it

10/24/2005 7:12:16 PM

it would be interesting to see the numbers for

crimes commited with legally purchased guns by their owners

vs

crimes commited with guns stolen or purchased illegally

10/24/2005 7:16:00 PM

your mom

10/24/2005 7:18:54 PM

no urs

10/24/2005 7:19:20 PM

yeah that would be good to see

quick question though

is it possible, AT ALL, for salisburyboy to post something that doesn't come from a "crackpot" source

he should just dig a little deeper and find REAL studies

10/24/2005 7:19:26 PM

John Stossel is probably the best source he's ever produced.

10/24/2005 7:20:07 PM

i mean the politics are real and clear.

whats wrong with that?

[Edited on October 24, 2005 at 7:21 PM. Reason : i is for emphasis]

10/24/2005 7:20:55 PM

12/1/2005 3:55:50 PM