PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control Article in the WSJ in light of the Tucson Shooting


waffmaster
01-18-2011, 12:18 PM
Many papers are having articles about gun control in favor or against it.
Here there is one from the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959104576081910062180664.html?m od=djemLifeStyle_h

Dreaded Claymore
01-18-2011, 1:55 PM
Gary Kleck, nice.

TahoeSig
01-18-2011, 2:13 PM
Wow, a well written, rational article. How in the world did that one get past the Editor? I wonder it that one made it to the print version?

Patrick-2
01-18-2011, 2:55 PM
Wow, a well written, rational article. How in the world did that one get past the Editor? I wonder it that one made it to the print version?

Ignore this post. I was wrong.

BigDogatPlay
01-18-2011, 3:09 PM
Wow, a well written, rational article. How in the world did that one get past the Editor? I wonder it that one made it to the print version?

Perhaps because it is the Wall Street Journal... which leans a bit farther right than most dailies in this country.

Kleck is, on balance, a friend of ours within the ivory towers of academia.

Patrick-2
01-18-2011, 3:17 PM
Perhaps because it is the Wall Street Journal... which leans a bit farther right than most dailies in this country.

Kleck is, on balance, a friend of ours within the ivory towers of academia.

And for some reason I saw "Washington Post". Wow. Talk about seeing gremlins in every shadow... :o

Tks.

odysseus
01-18-2011, 3:53 PM
CNN just posted front page online this editorial for RKBA from Robert Levy of the Cato Institute. I am surprised CNN gave it the space, considering how often they don't.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/18/levy.anti.gun.control/index.html?hpt=C1
So much for the quasi-religious faith that more controls mean fewer murders. There are about 500,000 gun-related crimes annually in the United States. Further, Americans own roughly 250 million guns. Assuming a different gun is used in each of the 500,000 crimes, only 0.2% of guns are involved in crime each year. A ban on firearms would be 99.8% over-inclusive.

stix213
01-18-2011, 3:59 PM
Some stuff I don't agree with toward the end, but overall a pretty good article for a news paper.

Some good points:

In any case, it is far-fetched to think that a person set on mass murder would refrain from carrying a concealed gun to the scene of a crime because it's illegal to do so.
The availability of large-capacity magazines is certainly irrelevant to ordinary gun violence, which usually involves few or no shots fired, but it is even irrelevant to virtually all mass shootings, because the shooters either have multiple guns, making it easy to fire many rounds without reloading, or they have ample time and opportunity to reload because there is no one present willing to stop them while they reload.
But there are costs to restricting guns as well as possible benefits. Any restrictions that limit the availability of guns for criminal purposes also limit their availability for self-protection. There is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective. Victims who use guns for defense in crime incidents are less likely to be injured or lose property than otherwise similar victims who either do nothing to resist or adopt other self-protection strategies. Making guns unavailable for self-defense can therefore cost lives, and this cost must be taken into account when considering the possible slight benefit of measures that would prevent only the rarest of crimes.