Comments on: Forgotten Lessons from America’s First Gun Violence Crisis

By: flynboy

flynboy — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:58:43 +0000

How can you say that gun control has worked beautifully in Australia. The rate of violent criime there has seen little if any change since the buy back program went into affect. There are even statistics that show an increase in the violent crime rate.

As the man said, “There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics.”

Limiting the availability of cheap firearms is not the answer. Changing societies views on personal rights and respect is. If you believe that gun control is the answer to all our problems, look at the problems in Africa. They have little access to guns but they know that an axe or machete will kill just as well.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:15:34 +0000

There are two sides to the gun debate. The first side says to have fewer guns such as in Australia (where it has worked beautifully) and the second side says lets have more guns. Americans mostly favour the second side. I think all Americans should be able to carry guns, even kids. It’s their right under the second amendment. I think a return to the old west days where everybody wears sidearms in full view is the way forward. The wild west days weren’t very violent so that should be a good solution.

By: Kevin Baker

Kevin Baker — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:52:07 +0000

Ah, yes, the “changing times” argument for dismissing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Carol:

Do you think the Founders considered telephones, television and the internet? Pornography, violent movies and video games? Those have been blamed for high levels of violent crime, too. If “domestic tranquility” is now more important than individual rights, why not restrict the First Amendment under your same logic?

And do some research. “Concealed weapon” most certainly WAS in their vocabulary. The earliest court cases concerning the right to arms were over whether that right covered concealed arms or only openly-carried ones.

There is no infringement in preventing a properly adjudicated mentally ill person from possessing a firearm. The key, however, is “properly adjudicated.” There’s some real questions about how to accomplish that – as the recent VT shooter illustrates.

By: carol s. rettew

carol s. rettew — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:28:19 +0000

Our Founding Fathers did not consider that in 216 years after ratifying the 2nd amendment there would be a population of 301 MILLION in their United States. The “concealed weapon” was not even in their vocabulary.

Insuring domestic tranquility has become the more important right lately. The right to make a profit on and to easily purchase a handgun should not have prioirity on our right to safety.

What is so “infringing” about putting an obviously disturbed person’s name on a “DO NOT SELL A HANDGUN UNTIL…” list?

By: Kevin Baker

Kevin Baker — Thu, 11 May 2006 21:59:18 +0000

I have rebutted the Salt Lake Tribune version of this op-ed at my blog, under the title “Saul Cornell, Unbiased Researcher” if anyone is interested. Just click on my name below, and scroll down to Wednesday, May 10.