http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/-"“If gun control works, Chicago ought to be safe.”This argument is mistaken as a matter of both statistics and law. While a simple glance at rough homicide rates suggests very little difference in crime rates between cities with strict gun laws and those without, the relevant research strongly suggests that ease of acquiring guns legally increases the local gun homicide rate. A 2001 paper by Mark Duggan estimated county-by-county gun ownership, finding that counties with higher rates of gun ownership had higher gun homicide rates. A second paper, which used a different measure of gun ownership, came to a similar conclusion. Both papers found that only gun homicide rates — and a county’s other homicide or broader crime rates — is affected by gun ownership, suggesting that easy access to guns increases gun homicide by getting more guns to more people.
A third, more recent paper goes further, finding that gun ownership increased gun homicides even when you control for levels of urbanization and poverty. That is, cities with more guns, all other things being equal, will have more homicide deaths, as will poorer areas. This points to the basic statistical error in the “what about Chicago?” argument — the question isn’t whether gun regulation is the only or principal determinant of gun homicide rates, it’s whether there’d be more or less gun death in Chicago if Chicago and nearby counties did a better job restricting access to guns. Given that states with tighter gun laws also have less guns (and less gun deaths), it seems the same would hold true (again, if you hold other variables like poverty and overall crime rate constant) on the city-to-city level. Moreover, studies of cities with strong background check and illegal sales enforcement provisions have found clear evidence that imposing these measures lowered the number of guns being diverted to criminals.
There’s another, well-known problem with this conceit — lax federal and state laws make it easy to purchase guns from nearby, underregulated counties or states and bring them into cities. In Chicago, for example, gun sellers will simply set up shop just outside the city limits and sell to traffickers who bring the weapons into the city. That’s one of the key arguments for the sort of federal action being considered today, especially universal background checks at nearby gun shows to prevent this sort of trafficking. A uniform federal standard would make it much harder for criminals to take advantage of state and local variation."
This is going to come as a shock to you, as statists simply cannot grasp the concept, but criminals don’t CARE if guns are illegal. See, that’s what makes them criminals in the first place. But hey, at least in cities and states with strict gun control laws, and in “gun free” zones, the innocent are disarmed and defenseless. Which makes them easy targets and victims for you and your ilk to exploit for political power. And isn’t that what’s REALLY important? Creating innocent victims to exploit for political purposes?
“Did you see/hear that an armed school resource officer subdued a gunman at an Atlanta Middle School?”
Did you hear about the three resource officers in Central Virginia schools who were convicted of sexual contact with minors? One of whom took the 16-year-old out of state? Didn’t think so. Danged liberal media.
BTW: Dan Wesson makes the only revolver that a “silencer” will work on, it’s about close tolerances. I always chuckle when I see TV or movies using these devices on revolvers.
Also, btw, the devices quiet things down, but do NOT silence as the movies depict. Even with a “silencers” weapons are a lot louder than that “fpppht” the sound man at MGM adds to the track.
if you use a gun during a crime and dont drop it when a cop shows up or you are runnig from a cop BANG YOUR SHOT why should a cop risk getting shot chasing you
After all that incessant back and forth that never changes from day to day, nobody addressed the point of the cartoon: the NRA spent 20 million last year lobbying both sides of the aisle and have many democrats that come from heavy gun ownership states that are going to be up for re-election in 2014 and don’t want to be seen as for gun control. The gun control lobby spent all of 4 thousand dollars lobbying. This is America, money talks…
Two ex-SEALs ambushed on a gun range, exactly how much defense would an untrained, inexperienced school teacher in a classroom, with a gun, provide?? It would be called increased collateral damage, period.
His position is that a literal reading of the Second Amendment doesn’t make any distinction between the sane and the insane, so that a consistent literalist would have to allow the insane to bear arms.
Oh, he’s not a literalist, he’s trying to show that a literalist position doesn’t make much sense. Sorry, I probably should leave it to the good Doctor to explain himself. But sometimes I find it hard to sit in the corner and watch the confusion, I just have to jump in and try to straighten things out.
The last time I tried to clarify a confusion we got into a totally useless discussion with exotidoc. But he’s a special case, now, isn’t he. David here seems like a good guy, and I hope we can have some good talks with him.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Odd how much they spend on opponents of those they don’t like, not just those they want on their side.
ConserveGov about 11 years ago
Google: Chicago + Gun Laws + Murder Rate.Laws aren’t the problem.
Stormrider2112 about 11 years ago
http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/-"“If gun control works, Chicago ought to be safe.”This argument is mistaken as a matter of both statistics and law. While a simple glance at rough homicide rates suggests very little difference in crime rates between cities with strict gun laws and those without, the relevant research strongly suggests that ease of acquiring guns legally increases the local gun homicide rate. A 2001 paper by Mark Duggan estimated county-by-county gun ownership, finding that counties with higher rates of gun ownership had higher gun homicide rates. A second paper, which used a different measure of gun ownership, came to a similar conclusion. Both papers found that only gun homicide rates — and a county’s other homicide or broader crime rates — is affected by gun ownership, suggesting that easy access to guns increases gun homicide by getting more guns to more people.
A third, more recent paper goes further, finding that gun ownership increased gun homicides even when you control for levels of urbanization and poverty. That is, cities with more guns, all other things being equal, will have more homicide deaths, as will poorer areas. This points to the basic statistical error in the “what about Chicago?” argument — the question isn’t whether gun regulation is the only or principal determinant of gun homicide rates, it’s whether there’d be more or less gun death in Chicago if Chicago and nearby counties did a better job restricting access to guns. Given that states with tighter gun laws also have less guns (and less gun deaths), it seems the same would hold true (again, if you hold other variables like poverty and overall crime rate constant) on the city-to-city level. Moreover, studies of cities with strong background check and illegal sales enforcement provisions have found clear evidence that imposing these measures lowered the number of guns being diverted to criminals.
There’s another, well-known problem with this conceit — lax federal and state laws make it easy to purchase guns from nearby, underregulated counties or states and bring them into cities. In Chicago, for example, gun sellers will simply set up shop just outside the city limits and sell to traffickers who bring the weapons into the city. That’s one of the key arguments for the sort of federal action being considered today, especially universal background checks at nearby gun shows to prevent this sort of trafficking. A uniform federal standard would make it much harder for criminals to take advantage of state and local variation."
rpmurray about 11 years ago
Laws against guns will definitely work better than laws against drugs or laws against illegal immigration. Honest.
larryrhoades about 11 years ago
Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts teach gun safety.
Harrison_Bergeron about 11 years ago
This is going to come as a shock to you, as statists simply cannot grasp the concept, but criminals don’t CARE if guns are illegal. See, that’s what makes them criminals in the first place. But hey, at least in cities and states with strict gun control laws, and in “gun free” zones, the innocent are disarmed and defenseless. Which makes them easy targets and victims for you and your ilk to exploit for political power. And isn’t that what’s REALLY important? Creating innocent victims to exploit for political purposes?
alex Coke Premium Member about 11 years ago
It’s not about killing. It’s just about the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment and keeping/aquiring guns. Simple. Don’t confuse the issues.
ninety_nine_percent about 11 years ago
Great ’toon.
beautifulyoli Premium Member about 11 years ago
I liked your take on the NRA/Politicians. Thanks for your cartoons, I enjoy them a lot. You always hit the nail on the head.
I Play One On TV about 11 years ago
“Did you see/hear that an armed school resource officer subdued a gunman at an Atlanta Middle School?”
Did you hear about the three resource officers in Central Virginia schools who were convicted of sexual contact with minors? One of whom took the 16-year-old out of state? Didn’t think so. Danged liberal media.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
BTW: Dan Wesson makes the only revolver that a “silencer” will work on, it’s about close tolerances. I always chuckle when I see TV or movies using these devices on revolvers.
Also, btw, the devices quiet things down, but do NOT silence as the movies depict. Even with a “silencers” weapons are a lot louder than that “fpppht” the sound man at MGM adds to the track.
genemascho about 11 years ago
if you use a gun during a crime and dont drop it when a cop shows up or you are runnig from a cop BANG YOUR SHOT why should a cop risk getting shot chasing you
Stormrider2112 about 11 years ago
If the ATF weren’t neutered by NRA lobbying, maybe we could enforce some laws.
pam Miner about 11 years ago
Someone loves to use the word moron tonight..
Mickey 13 about 11 years ago
After all that incessant back and forth that never changes from day to day, nobody addressed the point of the cartoon: the NRA spent 20 million last year lobbying both sides of the aisle and have many democrats that come from heavy gun ownership states that are going to be up for re-election in 2014 and don’t want to be seen as for gun control. The gun control lobby spent all of 4 thousand dollars lobbying. This is America, money talks…
lonecat about 11 years ago
“Semi-insane”??? What does that even mean?
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Two ex-SEALs ambushed on a gun range, exactly how much defense would an untrained, inexperienced school teacher in a classroom, with a gun, provide?? It would be called increased collateral damage, period.
lonecat about 11 years ago
His position is that a literal reading of the Second Amendment doesn’t make any distinction between the sane and the insane, so that a consistent literalist would have to allow the insane to bear arms.
lonecat about 11 years ago
Oh, he’s not a literalist, he’s trying to show that a literalist position doesn’t make much sense. Sorry, I probably should leave it to the good Doctor to explain himself. But sometimes I find it hard to sit in the corner and watch the confusion, I just have to jump in and try to straighten things out.
lonecat about 11 years ago
The last time I tried to clarify a confusion we got into a totally useless discussion with exotidoc. But he’s a special case, now, isn’t he. David here seems like a good guy, and I hope we can have some good talks with him.