Tim Carney
If you want to end gun deaths, don’t start with rifles
Yes, massacres tend to be done with weapons like this. But not most gun murders in the U.S.: a vast majority of gun murders in the U.S. are committed with a handgun.
This is important, because plenty of people these days are looking to draw a line between guns needed for legitimate purposes, such as self-defense, and guns used for killing people. Looks like they’re the same.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
…and if you really want to have a serious “discussion”, let’s look where these deaths are most prevalent, each day, every day.
/gun problem owned by democrat constituents
roy_batty on December 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Actually,
Violence against unarmed citizens — owned and operated by Liberals and Democrats.
Funny how we don’t have issues where guns are plentiful amongst law abiding citizens.
But trying to get a Liberal to see something logically is like herding cats. And you stand a better chance with the cats.
ProfShadow on December 21, 2012 at 11:10 AM
No kidding. There are no assault weapons. There are only weapons that are used either for assault or defense.
It’s also worth noting that most deaths appear to be the result of felon/criminal on felon/criminal events. That will not go away by banning anything currently being discussed for banning and will just result in skyrocketing violence of all kinds with the burden shouldered by the weakest and most vulnerable of our citizens.
Why does Bloomberg want the number of rapes per year to skyrocket?
Dusty on December 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM
An actual serious proposal by a GWU professor.
Link to quote
h/t to Cafe Hayek
tmitsss on December 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM
[Dusty on December 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM]
Rats! Forgot to add the link.
Dusty on December 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM
I’m thinking we need to mandate that every able bodied American owns and maintains a firearm or two.
There wouldn’t be any mass murders by firearms anymore. Of course, Tim McVeigh didn’t need any firearms, so mass murder would still be possible.
If we could only ban stupid, we could get rid of a lot of Liberal, and I use the word loosely, “thinking” that laws prevent anything.
Laws don’t prevent squat. They just outline potential consequences for their violation.
ProfShadow on December 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM
There are stupid people, and then there are really stupid people.
darwin on December 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Sorry. The gun grabbers are going to play CT for all it’s worth. THAT is in the news. As usual, they’ll stumble from one topic to the next as it has a high visability. As one issue fades, another will come and take it’s place.
There is no milage in addressing city violence. If there was, they’d be on it. As it is, to address the city issue would be taking responsibility for the cities and we all know that will not happen. Chicago has been a slaughterhouse this year and we have heard nothing until until Newtown.
Why is it that the Dems have been so quiet on Chicago ?
Jabberwock on December 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM
None of this matters. I strongly urge everyone to read the majority opinion from DC vs Heller, which was written by justice Scalia. He did am amazing job at laying out the history and purpose of 2A, and destroyed the typical lefty anti gun arguments. The feds can try and ban AR-15′s and high capacity magazines, but all they will accomplish is another SCOTUS decision which strengthens 2A.
HarryBackside on December 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Clearly, they are racists. They only care when it happens to blue-eyed blond kids.
juliesa on December 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Why, certainly. He and his friends should do this right away. Have a press conference and release to denote this tremendous exibition of intellegence. I think he/she also request that law enforcement folks should be barred from carrying their weapons as well.
I know MY house will be safer if THEY do it.
Jabberwock on December 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM
That’s because they are not white kids. Dead black kids don’t provide the same leverage for the libs because they’ve invested so much into the hood being “black culture”.
Frank Enstine on December 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM
The reason Newtown works for the Libs is that its part of the safe, suburban, soccer-mom world. The fact that 400+ people have been shot in Chicago, a city with some of the toughest gun laws in the country, is ignored because its the inner city and everyone expects it. No one on the left is willing to stand up and say “why?”
clippermiami on December 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM
They were waiting for someone to use a rifle so they could start screaming about “assault weapons”.
darwin on December 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM
We put our faith in SCOTUS to end Obamacare.
Just sayin’.
Left Coast Right Mind on December 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM
I agree. If guns are banned the cops , security guards and other such people don’t need them. As far as I know England’s cops don’t have guns.
Frank Enstine on December 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Yeah. I have been going through Heller the past few days.
Gun grabbers will have a difficult time getting past that decision.
Was especially instructive regarding militia
Jabberwock on December 21, 2012 at 11:29 AM
But they were all over it when they thought it was just handguns being used.
Frank Enstine on December 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM
When you read Scalia’s opinion, it looks like he made a pre-emptive strike against a future assault weapons ban. The majority opinion gives a definition of the word ‘arms’ to mean weapons that could commonly be found on the battlefield. He further went on to say the DC couldn’t ban handguns because of their popularity when it comes to home defense. Both the AR-15 and high cap mags are commonly found on the battlefield and are very popular choices for gun owners.
The court could uphold a ban, but that would require over turning two second amendment decisions made by the very same court. Good luck with that.
HarryBackside on December 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Chicago is in fact a gun range, no charge for its use even.
Just move the safety and fire at will.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM
I read an article about that same thing. Because Newtown was 95% white and represented a Norman Rockwell painting and a slice out of 1950s Americana, the libs get alot more mileage out of it. The public has become desensitized to Chicago so the media doesn’t care about the kids killed there.
TxAnn56 on December 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM
True, but the court didn’t have to wipe out two of their previous decisions on the Obamacare ruling. In order for the court to uphold an assault weapons ban, they would have to over rule the same courts ruling in Heller and the Chicago case.
HarryBackside on December 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Chicago, first free of charge human target gun range.
Brought to you by the Chicago Democrat Party Machine.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM
I found this post fascinating. These pols makes me sick.
jawkneemusic on December 21, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Nah. A lib SCOTUS just needs to ignore. The media outside our “bubble” is not going to bring up Heller or any other decision that doesn’t work their way.
Take a look at it this way: A similar group of people who argued that companies that produce pornography had a “first amendment right” thought it was ludicrous that other companies enjoyed a similar right and that deciding so “overturned 100 years of jurisprudence” (except when such a right applied to the commerce of pornography).
It’s a matter of slogans not any sort of rigorous logic.
Axeman on December 21, 2012 at 12:09 PM
The Roberts court wouldnt be overturning 100 years of jurisprudence from other courts. They would have to overturn two decisions from the current court. Big difference.
HarryBackside on December 21, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Golly. Who’da thunk it? Weapons intended for self-defense are the same ones intended to inflict great personal injury and death. Wow. Never would have figured this……….
Yes, firearms are intended for only one purpose, folks: to inflict greivous bodily harm (often fatal) upon that at which it is aimed. That. Is. The. Point.
GWB on December 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Simple. Call a weapons ban a tax and John Roberts would steamroll an animal shelter full of puppies to uphold it.
Left Coast Right Mind on December 21, 2012 at 12:52 PM
That is some profund stuff there Prof. I wonder how many people actually think its THE LAW that stops people from breaking it.
hat tip
44Magnum on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Right, because after expanding gun rights under the second amendment, Roberts is just going to turn around and kill a precedent established by his court.
HarryBackside on December 21, 2012 at 2:54 PM