I think Sowell's writing is right on target.
I'm sure you do. Let's start off being fair and identify the two groups of people by comparable labels. Gun Nuts and Gun Control Zealots. You're a Gun Nuts and I'm a Gun Control Zealots. Though I don't know exactly what those labels means other than to demean each other, let's use them. It's actually manipulative terminology...who wants to be a "nut" or a "zealot". If I use Gun Nut more and louder than you use Gun Control Zealot I win the PR war.
You, the Gun Nut, claim: [Sowell] says that gun-control was promoted and instituted by gun control zealots who had no real reason for their point of view other than their desire to meddle.
I, the Gun Control Zealot respond: he never said any such thing. Sowell made no claim what so ever about "meddling". All he ever does is make a comparison of gun control and crime rates over various periods in history in two countries. You, the Gun Nut made the meddling part up.
Sowell, the Gun Nut, seems to think that the only factor in crime rate, has to do with the availability of guns, the more guns that are available, the less the crime. He doesn't mention anything about population density or economic conditions. The flaw in that thinking of the Gun Nuts, is clearly shown in the previous display of Texas crime rates and the claim that crime rates went down once Texas implemented a carry law. [Or whatever you Gun Nuts call it]. As typical of the Gun Nuts, they have no explanation of why the crime rates in other states went down during the same period where carry laws were not even in play. They don't even wish to acknowledge that there is some correlation between crime rates and economic conditions.
Are guns less available today, then they were two years ago? In the context of handguns and rifles, what guns can't you get? Have gun sales slowed to a screaching halt? Are there less guns per capita today then there were two years ago. The Gun Nuts, I suppose, believe that's true. After all, the crime rate across the country has been increasing.
On population density, I think you'll find that urban areas have higher crime rates than the suburbs, and those have higher crime rates than rural areas. On a year-to-year basis, that's not a factor. But if you're looking at a two-hundred year history and ignoring population density [and economic conditions] you're fooling yourself as to the validity of the comparison.
Which reminds me of an earlier comparison of DC to the State of Texas by some Gun Nuts. How does one credibly compare a primarily urban environment to one that one that is geographically largely rural? The Gun Nut doesn't make that observation, the Gun Nut only looks at gun control laws and crime rate. That's it.
I've made some other points earlier on some flaws in the article that I won't repeat here, the Gun Nuts weren't able to respond then, they won't be able to respond now.
Much the same reason, that the Gun Nuts can't even spin a reason as to why the NRA doesn't challenge the DC ban on handguns or the ban on assault weapons. One thinks it's a sort of a "mystery", i.e., we don't know why any specific case is or is not challenged, the other thinks I, the Gun Zealot should ask the NRA.
One last tidbit for fun. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.
Before the shooting, James Brady and Ronald Reagan were Gun Nuts. After the shooting, both supported the Brady Bill. Hence, both James Brady and Ronald Reagan are American Gun Control Zealots.
jttmab |
