Silver Rights. A pro-civil rights blog, except for one important right. Guess which one didn't make the cut. That's not so remarkable, plenty on the left share that same blind spot. But in one case, while discussing the potential repeal of 'assault weapons' legislation, blogger 'J.' puts this in print, er, pixels:
But, ultimately, this will not be a laughing matter. The widespread availability of assault weapons results in incredible carnage. Instead of being allowed to lapse, the ban should be stiffened and extended to more guns.
Sorry, but availability of weapons of any sort and 'carnage' has no correlation in this country, except in reducing violent crime. I'm sure the blogger would disagree with me on several fundamental philosophical issues but when it comes to issues of fact, as in firearms = violent crime, we can debate actual numbers.
Professors John Lott, Yale, and William Landes, University of Chicago Law School, published a paper concerning right to carry laws and their effect on public shootings, including this passage:
[W]e find that deaths or injuries from mass shootings remain fairly constant over time
before the right-to-carry law is passed and falling afterwards (though the before law trend is only
significant for the number of shootings) ....[long snip]...
The other gun related law variables generally produce no consistent significant impact on mass
shootings. One exception is the impact of laws limiting a purchaser to no more than one-gun-amonth.
All the estimates imply that limitations on purchases increase multiple shootings, though the
statistical significance of this variable is driven solely by its impact on the number of injuries. The
point estimates on the waiting period variables are not consistent. In some equations, a longer
waiting period increases the risk of mass public shootings, in others it decreases the risk, and in
only one equation is the variable statistically significant. A safe storage law has no significant effect
in any equation. The imposition of additional penalties for using a gun in a crime significantly
reduces the number of murders, but the impact on injuries and the number of attacks is statistically
insignificant. Nor were any of the joint F-tests on the gun control variables statistically significant.
In sum, there is no evidence that these laws systematically reduce multiple shootings.
So, if gun control laws don't reduce mass shootings, why would the repeal of the same increase shootings?
(Lott & Landes paper entitled 'Multiple Victim Public Shootings' available here, PDF file. Quoted here from pages 10 and 11.)
:: Walter 8:06 AM [+] ::