JAMA says more gun laws fewer deaths

[VMI77]

You guys missed it.

"States that have the most laws have a 42% decreased rate of firearm fatalities compared to those with the least laws," said Dr. Eric W. Fleegler, an attending physician in pediatric emergency medicine at Boston Children's Hospital and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

He's correct. (Mind you, I'm choosing not to quibble with his numbers. I don't know if the study is really accurate or not, but the basic point is correct.)

What he fails to point out is that when guns are banned violent crime dramatically increases and so does overall crime. Of course gun fatalities decrease. There are less guns to use in fatalities. But that's not the point. Removing guns doesn't solve the problem of crime. It only reduces the problem of crimes committed with guns while dramatically increasing the problem of overall crime and violent crime. And it doubles (at least) the chance that you will be a victim of crime.

Liberals use this tactic repeatedly. For example, they point out that England's firearm fatality rate is dramatically lower than the US. And it is. What they don't point out is that England's gun laws have created an extremely violent and crime ridden society. The same thing is happening in Australia as well, another "civilized" country that has outlawed guns.

Now the doctors in England are calling for a ban on long kitchen knives! Rather than address the real problem, which is violent felons, they want to further disarm the law abiding citizens. It's insanity, but that's liberalism.

Remember, the title of John Lott's book isn't More Guns, Less Gun Fatalities.

I have to slightly disagree. Since the UK crime stats are well known by this time, as are other European stats, and in all the disarmed countries rape is almost twice to four times what it is in the US, I think we must logically conclude that the "progressives" are pro rape.

[VMI77]

Even if it were true, and to say I have doubts is putting it mildly, gun control laws are still a bad idea. I'm unwilling to give up my right to protect my life, the lives of my family, or my god given rights even IF that might reduce gun deaths.

Beyond that, while reducing gun deaths may be an admirable goal, if those reduced deaths equate to more victimization of people in the form of increases in rape, robbery, assault, theft, and other crimes, greater gun control is still a loser. Doubly so when it disproportionaly impacts women, the disabled, or the elderly in their ability to defend themselves, particularly when the threat comes in multiples.

It also fails to factor in who is actually getting shot. One hardened criminal killing another is not necessarily a bad thing. A victim killing their would be attacker also not necessarily a bad thing.

People abuse the 1st and 4th Amendments too. The Constitution still says what it says. No where in the Constitution does it state that I may be denied my rights because someone else abuses theirs. We either have rights or we don't. If we have rights, the consequences from some abusing them are either irrelevant or we don't have rights at all.

[Dadtodabone]

Well said.

[baldeagle]

John Lott has responded to the study. He eviscerates the study. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... z2OII5VpLx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;