View Full Version : gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes

04-07-2009, 7:44 AM
I was reading the SFexaminer yesterday morning and ran across this. Very unusual to see a newspaper with a pro-gun article, let alone a newspaper in SF. Applaud for Don Kates for speaking on behalf of us.

here's an online version of the article.

04-07-2009, 7:53 AM
WOW! Very nice.:thumbsup:

04-07-2009, 8:07 AM
Good article, thanks for posting it! :thumbsup:

04-07-2009, 8:14 AM
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I would like to ask some of these anti's this "What is the difference between calling an armed police officer to protect me, and me doing it myself? We would both be using the same tool for the same purpose would we not?"

The only difference is if I hafta call a COP....by the time he gets there I will likely be dead.

04-07-2009, 8:18 AM
Take the time to write a comment.

04-07-2009, 8:19 AM
yea, take time and write a comment to support your believe and to let the author knows that he's right on point.:)

Chris M
04-07-2009, 8:22 AM
In case the link quits working:

Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes

By Don Kates
Special to the Examiner 4/6/09

The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,” or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.

Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,” therefore, only “controls” those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.

Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as National Coalition to Ban Handguns’ allegation that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens.” Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods — but with no supporting references. For there are none.

Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.” Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991-2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests — in addition to their arrests for other crimes.

In sum, guns or no guns, neither most murderers nor many murderers — nor virtually any murderers — are ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults. This conclusion is so invariably reached by homicide studies that the 1998 study by David Kennedy and Anthony Braga describes the fact that murderers are almost invariably veteran criminals as a standard “criminological axiom.”

Naïve, well-meaning people often respond to such facts with, “Still, wouldn’t this be a better world without guns?” After many years of studying guns as a highly effective method of self-defense, I reply, no, the world would be immeasurably worse off without the only weaponry that gives the weak a real chance against predators. After all, there was a time, hundreds of years ago, when there were no guns. Without guns for self-defense, survival was measured by the strength of men’s arms, as women, children and the elderly huddled in terror, escaping only by abject submission to their predators. Yes, Mixon used a gun to kill four Oakland police officers. But had he not been shot and killed by another member of the SWAT team, the death toll would have been undoubtedly higher. In the hands of sworn officers and moral citizens, guns are a powerful, swift means of protection. When the government passes laws that only peaceable people obey, they are simply leaving the same people at the mercy of violent predators.

04-07-2009, 8:31 AM
Love this! just sent it to all my anti-gun people in my contacts list!

04-07-2009, 9:04 AM
Yes, it is nice to see a bit of 'common sense' written up in a S. F. news paper.

On the subject of 'gun control' laws in S. F., I've offered this thought to the 'gun control people' for quite a few years now, and gotten some rather interesting mixed reaction.......here's the idea....

************************************************** *

Alright, If you are so convinced that a local ordinance completely disarming the public is a good idea, its time to give your idea a fair trial.

If you mean to enact 'gun control', then enact 'real gun control', but for a specific period of time only, after which the law would 'sunset' unless renewed. I'd say that a reasonable period of time would be two years.

Draw a 'Security Zone' line on the map, and placard the line thoroly, so that everyone entering the secured area cannot be unaware of the laws which apply in the secured zone.

Inside the security zone, no one except regular uniformed police officers while on duty may be allowed to possess any variety of firearm, and/or other item defined as a 'weapon', or as a 'tool which can readily be used as a weapon', except that certain 'tools' may be possessed under specified conditions relating to employment.

No person, other than Federal Secret Service Officers, and then only when present while guarding an incumbent of, or candidate for, Federal Elective Office, may possess or carry any 'concealed weapon' at any time.

Possession of 'tools' which are essential to the performance of employment, but can be readily used as weapons, such as a carpenter's hammer or hatchet, or butchers' or chef's knives, must be strictly regulated.

Knives, claw-hammers and hatchets, being the primary class of 'tools readily capable of use as weapons', must have serial numbers applied, and be registered to their owners, who are responsible for their use, and for securing them when not in use.

A reasonable period of time must be allowed for compliance with the serial number marking and registration requirement, and no person may be required to pay any fee to government for registration of any 'tool capable of use as a weapon'.

Since it is impossible to list every variety of tool which might be used as an improvised weapon, any person convicted of assault with any 'tool or device used as an improvised weapon' shall be subject to substantial sentence enhancement.

Since, under this ordinance, private persons may not possess firearms or other types of weapons, the appropriate police agency shall have a positive duty to protect all persons, at all times, from losses due to criminal action.

'Faliure to Protect' shall establish liability for damages.

************************************************** **

It has been rather fascinating, over the years, to hear the 'gun control' peoples' response to that proposal. It usually starts with......but....but....but.........



Chris M
04-07-2009, 9:41 AM
Yeah, and let's start with YOUR neighborhood.

04-07-2009, 9:42 AM
The author should be familiar to most of us....

04-07-2009, 10:01 AM
The author should be familiar to most of us....

Could you please try and be a little more cryptic? The eagle flies in the sky on quiet nights, but the owl is silent.

04-07-2009, 10:22 AM
Great article. If you have an account on DIGG please digg this article!
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Gun_control_restricts_those_least_likely_to_commit _crimes

04-07-2009, 11:43 AM
Could you please try and be a little more cryptic? The eagle flies in the sky on quiet nights, but the owl is silent.


I’m glad to see that people outside of the gun community can read something thats very well put together and get right to the point...

04-07-2009, 11:46 AM
Thanks for calling it to our attention. I left a comment, but it didn't show yet. Maybe they read them before posting...

04-07-2009, 12:31 PM
linked to my facebook account, mainly so my anti-gun parents will see it without me pushing it on them;)