Absolutely correct. The article is rife with opinion and speculation and almost devoid of facts. For example,Middle Age Russ wrote:This article was a bit hard for me to read and seems like it may have been hard for the writer to put together as well. He does not seem to have opinions with a strong basis in fact, principles and reasoning, and seems to waffle all about in his essay. While the writer wants the reader to believe that he is in favor of private ownership (and supposed use) of firearms, he equivocates beginning with the use of "sick gun culture" in the title itself. He then goes into a bit of a morality play involving human rights arguments for the Second Amendment seeming at first to come down on the side of individual liberty/responsibility and then immediately jumps into "qualifications" for gun ownership. He then sprinkles in plenty of the current verbiage of the gun-grabbers, including the use of terms like "gun crime" designed specifically to demonize the tool and escape reasoned debate. All in all, the title is misleading on more than the simple statement of "sick gun culture" -- the use of Conservative in the title belies that the article itself references Conservatives only in the manner of essentially saying that they are wrong -- or at least mostly so -- by drawing the conclusion that the American model of individual gun ownership has yielded poor results. Overall, I chalk it up as another misinformation essay from our friends in the media.
First of all, comparing firearm-related homicides across countries is noticeably difficult to do, as John Lott points out. Countries keep statistics differently. For example, Great Britain doesn't count homicides until the killer is convicted. So, if you are murdered and your killer is never caught or isn't convicted, you aren't part of the statistics. Furthermore, comparing firearm-related homicides across countries tells you little about the level of violence in a country. You must compare ALL homicides, no matter the weapon that was used (including fists, feet and heads.)But our firearm-related homicide rate is noticeably higher than every comparable industrialized nation. And furthermore, there seems to be a strong correlation between reduced access to firearms and a reduced rate of suicide.
John Lott points out the flaws in many of these arguments.
So the writer, who is obviously conflicted, swallows some of the left's arguments whole, without even bothering to look at the facts, and then claims he's a conservative and "we" ought to think about it? Well, I've given a great deal of thought about it, and I can't think of any reason to restrict gun ownership for law-abiding citizens, other than tyranny.