John Tures (courtesy harriscountygapop.com)

“Supporters of gun control have sought to highlight the vast number of shootings that have occurred in recent years. But while it seemed to make sense, it may not have been a good strategy. They need to highlight examples where tough gun laws reduced shootings. Otherwise, such publicity may only reduce support for gun control.” – John A. Tures, Do Mass Shootings Like Newtown Actually Reduce Support for Gun Control? [via huffingtonpost.com]

Recommended For You

56 Responses to Quote of the Day: Gun Control Advocates Shooting Themselves in the Foot Edition

    • It’s the south’s fault! The good college bound, government dependent, low income upstanding subject of the month can’t resist the evil sirens song of easy access firearms from gun shows. When the sheep gain access to the baby killing machines of war they’re instantly transformed by the inherently evil nature of guns.
      /sarc

      • You have most of it right; except you forgot to mention the other main culprits, the evil NRA and Bush the younger.

        (Also sarc.)

  1. This guy is a true believer since states with the toughest gun control laws have the worst violent crime rates. Second Amendment supporters can counter this type of propaganda arguing about changing the social policies that contribute to the conditions that are the root cause of the violence problem.

  2. How do you even do that?

    The only way I see is to wildly infer that if there wasn’t a mass shooting somewhere, the gun laws “stopped a mass shooting.”

    Obviously I use the term infer loosely.

      • I guess the only question would be how long after something doesn’t happen can you say it will never happen…

    • Actually, I would expect the antis to “do that” the same way they “highlight the [not really] vast numbers of shootings in recent years…”, and “highlight” the similarly not-really-“vast” numbers of gun sales with no background checks. That is, by making up such instances out of thin air and reporting them as fact.

  3. In NJ all they have to do is put out traffic cones and stop people, Rob and/our shoot them.
    The areas with the strictest fun laws also have the lowest homicide clearance rates.
    In Boston, murderers have something like a75% chance of getting away with it. More if you are black and there is one black on the jury. Lots of OJ juries in Boston.

  4. I know back when I was a Liberal New Yorker pre-pediatrician the “gun buyback” programs that were started in the late 90’s and Guiliani’s time were touted locally as being effective in cutting the shooting rates down in NY. They don’t bring those studies up any more so I assume they were proven wrong? If a anti-gunner wants to do something they may approach it from that perspective.

    Now that I’m a Western Conservative (forced to be Republican until the Tea Party or Libertarians get serious numbers) I don’t have that perspective any more and believe in personal responsibility. So don’t attack me for the first paragraph 🙂

    • Anti’s still love them some gun buy backs turn ins that waste tax-payer dollars. There is always a quote from someone in the local news coverage that says it reduces crime. It doesn’t seem like too many people believe it if you ever cruise the comment sections under those articles.

  5. Give it time for there to be a mass stabbing or bludgeoning and they’ll be saying how they’ve won because at least nobody was shot while being killed…

      • Well, that or they lump stabbing–and vehicular assault–victims in with “shooting victims”, as in Elliot Roger… But really, they are pretty flagrant about giving the impression that to them, the only kind of violence that actually hurts or kills anyone is “gun violence”.

    • Or they would start pushing for knife control laws. Oops, I meant they have started pushing for knife control laws.

  6. Simply pur anti-gunners are murderers, rapist, assaulters, etc by proxy. They protect the criminals and dis-arm the VICTIMS. Again, propagating their agenda appears counter productive to me.

    Why do you insist on doing that Robert?

  7. My simple response to anyone who says we need more gun control because of a recent shooting. “What law would you like to see passed that would have prevented this?”
    90% of the time proposed laws are completely irrelevant to what happened and the other 10% have negatives that far outweigh any theoretical benefit (not to mention that whole “shall not be infringed thingy”)

    • but of course as long as there is even a .000001% chance a new law might save just ONE life, then that law is totally worth it. other consequences be darned!

      • I love the “one life” argument from anti’s. I just throw it back at them with, “so then you must support concealed carry as it absolutely has saved one life.” It throws them off, they start blabbering about net benefits of gun control and then I slap them with the most recent report from the Obama commissioned CDC study that cites 500k to 3 million DGU’s a year and that those that defend themselves with firearms are less likely to be injured in the crime, etc, etc. It pretty much spirals into an emotional argument at that point with me being accused of wanting dead children and the like, but hey, my arguments are for those on the fence that are observing. I never expect to convert an anti in a factual debate.

  8. “They need to highlight examples where tough gun laws reduced shootings”
    Or they could use their time more productively, like finding Nessie or Sasquatch…

  9. There’s a reason why the anti-gunners haven’t used this tactic yet…it won’t work. There are too many examples to list of locales with ‘strict’ gun laws and high crime rates. Furthermore, how can you say that any particular law has prevented crime? The definition of criminal activity implies the willingness to ignore the law.

    The second reason the anti-gunners pounce on every publicized shooting of any magnitude is for the emotional impact. Their entire argument is based on creating a visceral, emotional response in their target audience. Logic, facts, and the Constitution need not be included in the discussion. It would be an paradigm shift of epic proportions if the anti-gunners actually tried to use fact and logic…and that would be perfect for the pro-2A crowd since the facts support our position.

  10. If you believe the official story given to the public over Sandy Hook then there is no way to interpret Nancy Lanza other than as a remarkable exception to the rules of common sense. It makes no sense to stockpile that many weapons in such a messed up household with such a majorly mentally handicapped young man.

    Eccentric isn’t even the word for what was supposedly going on in that household. Ultimately it is not a valid test case for gun control due to that reason alone. There are too many irresponsible gun owners in the world today, but few of them can hold a candle to the likes of that divorced suburban mom for whom it seemed so out of character.

    If they really wanted to try and make Sandy Hook a case for gun control then they needed to reveal more information about the Lanza family and what was going on with them over the years. Things like: how this woman and her sons got so into firearms and how they failed to address that they were giving a mentally ill young man access to weapons… What did the father think about it? That never really happened, almost like the family was protected, the entire focus has been on the perceived loss to the community and the sheer horror of it all.

    If this is really about common sense gun control, then let’s talk about common sense and not let our emotions rule the discussion. Something evil happened in that town and I don’t think the real cause has been addressed. Why has the Lanza family been allowed to go quietly in the night? Is it due to their ties to Ernst & Young, a company which works closely with our government in many ways? Gun owners do not deserve collective blame for what happened in that town, period. All Americans deserve answers that we simply have not been given.

    • Nancy Lanza didn’t have a “stockpile,” she had an “arsenal.”

      Please brush up on your anti-gun jargon before you comment here.

  11. The AWB of 94 was the greatest thing to ever happen to the AR platform. Every threat to limit gun rights results in record gun sales. Diane Feinstein is the single biggest gun salesman ever. The funny thing is, they can’t see it. Their hatred for guns blinds them of any common sense. I seriously believe that absent the likes of of Feinstein, Bloomberg and rabid fanatics like them, it would be easier for the leftists to slip restrictions by us. Incrementalism used to be a powerful tool of the left. Their lack of patience on gun control has cost them.

  12. “Do Mass Shootings Like Newtown Actually Reduce Support for Gun Control?”

    Well, pretty much everyone that I have queried realizes that armed good guys are the best way to minimize the body count at such events.

  13. Doom and gloom can only last for so long. At some point people will start looking at what works and what doesn’t (example: midterm elections). They don’t have to look far to see that areas with more gun laws have more violent crime (DC, Chicago, New York, Australia) Antigunners can’t point to one place and say “see it works here”

  14. There is every reason for all criminals to become members and promote all anti-gun agendas. The benefit always falls to the criminal and against the citizen. Brain dead obvious.

    How and why this simple reality never gains traction for the 2A community I can’t quite grasp.

  15. I had read somewhere that the states with the more lenient gun control laws have higher overall gun violence rates; is this true?

    • No, it’s not true. If you look at straight numbers, there really isn’t much you can extrapolate from that data that points to gun laws as a defining factor of violence (or gun violence) rates. There are just as many places with loose gun laws that have low murder rates per 100k as there are places with strict gun laws and vice versa. For example, Vermont has some of the lowest crime, violence, and murder rates in the country and has very loose gun laws. Hawaii has some of the strictest gun laws and is similar to Vermont in low violence and murder rates. On the other end of the spectrum you have Louisiana with fairly lax gun regulation but a high murder rate along with Maryland with similar homicide rates and strict gun laws. Of course, if you took out New Orleans and Baltimore from those numbers, you would see both states toward the least violent category… which is generally where the real social issues (gangs, poverty, culture) are in regards to violence. But don’t take my word for it, look for yourself. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report is a good source of information because it is pure numbers that you can interpret for yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *