Maggie's Farm

You know how to tell is someone's from Oklahoma? Ask him if his mama takes the Marlboro out of her mouth when she's tellin' the Highway Patrolman to kiss her behind.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=john+lott+john+r+lott&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

More Guns, Less Crime was published in 1998 --the third edition is now out. Lott is a PhD economist and compiled stats as economists do.

Every politician in DC that can read MUST have read it by now (who can't read will have assigned a staffer to summarize).

The grabbers know that their 'public safety' grabbing premise is a huge, monstrously cynical lie.

Ergo, the senate debate coming right up (yes, it IS time to talk to a pol or three) will be a theatrical improvisation based on the premise that there is a fictional world where the Lott book could not have been written.

So, really, the question is as posed twice above (by GWTW and Dr Scott).

That's really the first question that pro-grabbers should have to face --framed as "why are you for more gun violence?"

Feinstein's feigned rebut that 'we have to start somewhere' implies that the gazillion guns out there now will wear out one by one (true, but it'll take thousands of years), and then, no more criminals!

No smugglers of foreign Saturday Nite Specials, freelancing and/or paying off the grabber taskforces, and no states west of the Cumberland Gap, or east of it for that matter, with citizens who have a garage to build their own guns in.

I think the Democrat Dons are just following orders from organized crime (ie, themselves) to get up another major contraband category (build on the Joe Kennedy model) --for a dual-profit 'war on drugs' ($ for mob, $ for pols) model.

And of course, hoping to start with guns and then contraband on down to the torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers, sticks & stones, pop-tarts & thoughts, before they get put in play where they ought to have been put in play the day after the Bullmoose Party lost.

===

note to Heltau, here's the worst you'll find against the Taurus --and reading between the lines, esp the late para re the 'double ought' .410 shell, the model you're after is among the six described, along with MSRP.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/taurus_judge.htm

There's a million articles out there --there's even other articles from The Guardian citing violent crime as worse in England.GB than the USA. There's articles that lay 80%, articles that lay up to 97%, of USA gun violence as committed by urban gangsters --good luck on disarming the gangs.

ASsk a crime victim, or the bereaved, who might have deterred or fought off violence or death, if they've seen the statistics. Like a shark attack, it's a low probability/high consequence event.

The stat that is most important of all, given that all developed countries have about the same levels of violent crime* is the one that can't be assayed --how much crime is deterred before it makes and show at all, by the erstwhile criminal's avoiding potential defensive firepower? You'd have to canvass a sample of not just violent criminals but wanna-bes who demure because the victim may be armed?

https://www.youtube.com/results?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&oe=utf8&q=youtube+crook+laughs+at+tv+gun+control+ad&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1

(the one you want is by ''antiprise'', around 4th down from top, runtime 2:36)

===

I ran three Bing searches, and recommend all three for reams and reams of pro 2nd supporting factuals:

homicide rate england and usa

violent crime great britain and usa

how much gun crime is gang related?

===

But everybody trusts Thomas Sowell --let's read his short essay (bolding mine):

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm


Gun control myths
Thomas Sowell
November 26, 2002

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College deserves some sort of special prize for taking on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is deeply entrenched and fiercely dogmatic. In her recently published book, "Guns and Violence," Professor Malcolm examines the history of firearms, gun control laws and violent crime in England. What makes this more than an exercise in history is its relevance to current controversies over gun control in America.

Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.

In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London.

If we are serious about the role of guns and gun control as factors in differing rates of violence between countries, then we need to do what history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm does -- examine the history of guns and violence. In England, as she points out, over the centuries "violent crime continued to decline markedly at the very time that guns were becoming increasingly available."

England's Bill of Rights in 1688 was quite unambiguous that the right of a private individual to be armed was an individual right, independently of any collective right of militias. Guns were as freely available to Englishmen as to Americans, on into the early 20th century.

Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides -- an average of one a year."

The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England -- or at least the law-abiding part of it.

It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.

While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals.

In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either.

In England as in America, sensational gun crimes have been seized upon and used politically to promote crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing about criminals. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.

===