When Brian Ross and George Stephanopolous speculated about the possibility that the tragedy was the work of a Tea Party member on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Friday they were probably saying aloud what most of the mainstream liberal media was thinking at the time. ABC has apologized for this irresponsible comment but now that it’s become clear that a mentally disturbed person with no apparent political agenda committed the tragedy, many on the left have fallen back on the trope that more gun control measures might have prevented the crime and are venting their frustration about the fact that the American people have little interest in more gun laws.
It is an article of faith on the left that banning certain types of weapons and making it more difficult to obtain all firearms will deter or prevent crime. The best we can say of this belief is that it is an unproven assumption. True or not, it’s clear the majority of Americans believe that government interference with gun rights scares them more than random acts of violence by the insane. But it is interesting that few seem to be speaking about a far more obvious conclusion that could be drawn from Aurora: the need to focus more attention on treating and preventing mental illness. But the problem with promoting that far more germane and productive line of inquiry is that it serves no one’s political interest.
The impulse to politicize the non-political is not limited to the left. Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert said the tragedy was the product of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.” No doubt that is something that many who worry about the direction of the country think whenever anything bad happens. Indeed, Gohmert’s statement recalls Newt Gingrich’s belief that Susan Smith’s murder of her two children in 1994 was the result of a sick society that could be cured by more people voting Republican. Liberals rightly mock such claims but that doesn’t stop them from riding their own favorite hobbyhorses when tragedy strikes.
If, as Politico rightly pointed out on Friday, that “nothing can be done” about such events, it is not really because of the power of the National Rifle Association but because the assumption that there is a political answer to every question is a fallacy. Many liberals may believe that it is only the evil gun lobby that enables the insane to do insane things while some conservatives may think it is the breakdown of civilization caused by liberalism. Politics and government are not the solution to everything. Senseless violence is just that. But discussing mental illness does not advance the cause of neither the left nor the right. So we are left after anything terrible happens listening to the same tired clichés about guns and liberals. The best that can be said about all of this is that the American people are far too sensible to be influenced by the sort of vapid commentary that we have been subjected to in the aftermath of Aurora.
New York City has the lowest crime rate of the 10 largest cities in the United States. It also has the toughest gun laws.
Explain Washington DC then. Also explain Switzerland, which has tons and tons of guns (asault rifles, in fact), yet virtually zero gun violence. n nThere are plenty of other examples of places with "lax" gun laws yet very low crime. Simple associations like you are making are generally oversimplifications.
Washington DC is next to Virginia, which makes it easy to get guns. nAs for Switzerland, there are other variables, such as a lack of broken windows, as Keith Vlasak suggests. Guns are one variable–a variable that can be controlled. If you can do something that helps, do it. Deal with the factors that can be dealt with. Even if you only save a few lives, every life is infinitely valuable.
NYC's lower crime rate is due to a massive police presence since Guilliani and even more since 9/11. Without controlling for those very major factors, your statistic (which is not even that) is meaningless. n nSwitzerland is excellent evidence that a culture saturated with guns is not in and of itself a risk factor for crime. The fact that they might be an orderly culture just goes to prove that culture is the key factor, not the availability of guns. n nIsrael too. There is very little gun crime in Israel, except terrorism by Palestinians. Yet there are tons of guns in Israel. n nYour notion that you can "control" for what you can is foolish. You can eliminate speeding and car accidents by outlawing cars or forcing everyone to drive 2 miles an hour. n nGuns are and will always be highly available in this country. They are in NYC too. But there are tons and tons of cops. The key factor is culture, not guns. n nWhy are we not afraid of Israel having nukes but we are Iran (I assume you agree)? nThis does not even get into the well established evidence that places with concealed carry laws experience a drop in gun crime.
As long as guns are as easy to get as other consumer products we will continue to pay the price in lives lost. While owning a gun maybe a constitutional right I don't think that our founding fathers would have allowed assault weapons and clips that hold a lot of ammunition. The NRA continues to threaten politicians in Congress who even think about more gun control. We should be asking "why doesn't this happen more often" given our countries lax gun laws
Have you heard of Anders Breivik?
Timothy McVeigh killed more people than James Holmes and Jared Loughner combined,times ten,without so much as a potato gun. n nThis guy Holmes planned this attack,over several months most likely,including the setting of booby traps(30!). n nDo you really think that a lack of availability of guns would have discouraged him? "Oh,I can't get any guns for that mass murder I was planning to commit. Might as well make some cupcakes instead." n nSomething in this Holmes' brain told him it was completely acceptable to kill a large number of people. No law was going to discourage him from making that happen.
No, of course it would be ineffective and pointless to ban 100-round magazines for AR-15s. It might make it more difficult for the hunter to get his deer. Madness. n
Remind me again – where does the 2nd amendment say anything about deer or hunting? n nIf a rioting mob was advancing on your store — or home — to burn it down and murder you, having a large capacity magazine you might find a large capacity magazine important to have. Although from what I have been reading today, you might be well advised to stay away from the 100-round varieies, which reportedly have a tendency to jam.
This case involves a young man of much above average intelligence and knowledge who for some as yet unknown reason was bent on committing random mass murder. In a liberal democracy tougher gun control laws can do nothing at all to stop such persons, as was illustrated not very long ago by Anders Breivik.
Some of the argument over whether better gun control would have prevented this latest tragedy is misplaced. Understanding that the tragedy is the unforesseable consequence of a psychopathological individual whose psychosis finally let itself out and that more gun control would not necessarily have been an effective prophylactic stopping it, there's a different point to be made. It bears analogy to the clear and present danger test as the reason why hate speech can't consitutionally be criminalized unless there is incitement to violence. An answer to that is while each incident of hate speech may not present a clear and present danger, each incident of it, each instance of it, contributes to a climate of hatred that then provides a context which increases the likelihood of criminal acts, and so there is a nexus. The culture of guns and violence, the analogous argument would go, similarly creates a context which makes homicidal violence more likely. And so just as the cumulative enculturation of hate likely leading to hate crimes arguably provides a rationale for criminalizing hate speech not in itself inciting violence, so the cumulative enculturation of gun violence leading to acts of gun violence arguably provides a specific rationale for more vigorous gun control and restriction. n nA different point: what's the argument for citizens being able to arm themselves with AK 47s and like combat weaponry? Why isn't it reasonable gun control to ban them–as had been done but lapsed–consistent with Heller?
“The culture of guns and violence, the analogous argument would go, similarly creates a context which makes homicidal violence more likely.”r nr nPerhaps in theory. The problem is that this is a hypothetical argument and the weight of evidence is against it. You might as well argue that the culture of responsible gun ownership suppresses violence. There is at least some evidence for the latter argument, given that US violent crime rates have decreased over the past twenty years even as Americans have armed themselves at a high rate. r nr nOverall there is significant evidence, as compiled by Lott et al, that higher rates of gun ownership per se either have no effect or a negative effect on violent crime rates. To reflexively argue the opposite, without evidence, as the commenter I quoted did, suggests a political agenda, and that is a large part of the reason why many of us are suspicious of such arguments and of the people who make them. We have heard the arguments many times before, they have not held up empirically, and yet the people who make them continue to ignore contrary evidence.
Perhaps members of OWS should be investigated in order to prevent and other crimes. But. alas, we do not investigate what Obama supports.
I'd love to hear what Tobin thinks might be done in the way of preventing or treating mental illness that would make any difference in the case of a young man with no apparent history of illness who was functioning well enough to get into a PhD program not long ago. n nI also think conservatives should not slavishly follow the NRA's lead. A group that thinks it is dandy for a private individual to acquire a sizable arsenal of anti-personnel weapons on the grounds that anything less could lead at some unknown future time to tyrannical disarming of hunters and sports shooters deserves less attention. n nThe AR-15 assault rifle with a high capacity magazine that this guy carried into the movies is one powerful military weapon. Banning its sale should be a no brainer. And why can just anyone buy tear gas canisters for that matter? Need to stun the deer? Would the Founders really have cared about banning that?
Any person who has ever been stalked realizes immediately that she can rely upon the Police as historians and that's about it. n nThe right of any citizen to protect herself from mortal danger is a basic human right. n nThe rationalization for the death of the woman who is made helpless by onerous gun laws will be a snap for those who view the lives of recent victims as "infinitely valuable." n nThe reason gun control laws are less popular than they were a couple of decades ago is that people do recognize that they have the right to defend their lives, they do have the right to life. Oklahoma City, Columbine, 9/11 all serve as reminders of the historian at the grave site. n nThe reason more people identify as pro-life is best exemplified by the recent example provided by a young Mormon. A woman with two children, distraught that the other had been conceived. She purchased some pills, illegal in her State if memory serves, to bring about the destruction of her offspring. The baby was more developed, older than calculated and she placed him in a shoe box on the porch. Every decent person knows to extend sympathy to the child in the shoe box on the porch. n nI'm in a medium sized City with the highest per capita homicide rate in the State. Our gun laws are strict. n nExpect a backlash if Congress moves precipitously. The President won't because the swing States are big on the right of self-defense.
There's no reason for a civilian to be able to purchase assault weapons.
Turn in your hammer, then. And your automobile. And your kitchen knives. Plenty of assaults are commited with all of them.
I'm tired of the "assault rifle" rhetoric I'm reading here from the gun-grabbers. Assault rifles are fully automatic; this weapon fired only one round for every trigger pull. n nJust to reiterate what others have said, I have a natural, God given, right to defend myself and my family, as noted in the Declaration and guaranteed by the 2d Amendment.
That's what it USED to mean. Today it means "any gun with an appearance that I find scary". Not to mention that the ban on so-called assault weapons was allowed to lapse because the ban was found to have made zero difference in the rate of murder, attempted murder, and otehr violent crime.
Guns deter crime. That is a fact. Concealed carry reduces crime where it is implemented. You are wrong that there are no harmful side effects. Besides denying constitutional rights, and creating a black market , controlling guns (by which you mean a virtual ban) prevents law abiding citizens from defending themselves. So, there is indeed a harmful side effect. n nYou could also reduce crime by eliminating the Miranda warning, the 5th amendment and many other constitutional protections. n nLet's also "control" knives. No more knives that can but anything but a well marbled steak. What harm is there? In fact, why even allow steak knives. They are very sharp and dangerous and steak is bad for you anyway.
Guns deter crime??? Did they deter VirginiaTech? Columbine? Fort Hood? nIf the perpetrators had used knives and hadn't had guns, the death toll would have been lower.
Yes. There is plenty of empirical evidence.
The UK has tried to control knives as well. Also beer mugs. These efforts have not resulted in any noticeable drop in violent crime.
Let's change the subject then to suicide from crime? These stats are not close to being meaningful. There are so many other factors you would have to control for. For one, what is the overall suicide rate in the country? Switzerland, even your own own Wikipedia stats, boasts a very low murder rate by firearms. That should tell you something.