Quote of the Day: You Got That Right Edition

Francis Wilkinson (courtesy freshfiction.com)

“In the U.S., there simply is no contest between gun rights and public safety.” – Francis Wilkinson, Guns Kill Safety Every Time [via bloombergview.com]


  1. avatar James says:

    Freedom is a pesky annoying thing sometimes. It requires logical thinking and higher principles of thought beyond “I feel”. I realize that freedom is the hard way of doing things when government killing of opposition is much easier, but if you are really that hard down on feeling and life being easy, then you’d better start advocating civil war and insurrection. In other words, join CSGV.

  2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Um, no; there IS a contest, actually.

    Constitutional rights generally don’t fully apply ’til one reaches majority, so six year olds with handguns typically should be accompanied by a parent or other adult.

    Also, felons – before they’ve proven themselves and are fully out of the system – get their own carve-out.

    However, as a member of the public who is safer with than without a gun, I must take issue with his use of a superlative.


  3. avatar Paul G says:

    The anti’s are fond of posting cartoons of numerous tombstones labeled “US gun deaths today” or similar.
    Has anyone ever tried to put together something similar to reflect the lives saved/rapes prevented/crimes foiled through the presence or use of a firearm?

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      It’d be difficult, because since so many go unreported there are no good statistics.

      Still, a general field without specific numbers… hitting GIMP when I get home.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Yes, here in fact. There are the two studies from the early 90’s, one found between 1 and 2 million or so defensive gun uses per year, the later one found between 800k and 1.5 million.

      From one of those 15% of defenders reported that they would surely have been killed had they not employed their gun.

      TTAG’s local statistician crunched the numbers and found that 90% of that 15% would have to be wrong before the benefit of guns broke even with gun homicides.

      Sorry I can’t remember more details.

      Hey Nick, do you recall that one?

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Also, nothing too definitive, but enough to prove the positive social utility to my mind.

      2. avatar Paul G says:

        I am aware of the statistics, but has anyone ever done a public artistic rendition comparing the deaths versus the lives saved?
        Something in your face to diminish the effect of their tombstone graphics.

  4. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Another thought: SATAN, because without a scapegoat you might have to take personal responsibility for your actions.

  5. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Firearms are not a public safety issue as they are inanimate objects. If someone fires a gun indiscriminately in a crowded public place that would be a public safety issue. A public safety issue is usually something like a bushes obscuring the view of traffic when you’re trying to make a turn. The bushes should be trimmed. Or big pot holes that go unrepaired and just get bigger.

    What should be disturbing to people like Mr Wilkerson is that there are people who can’t be trusted with firearms not in prison or on death row.

  6. avatar michael nieto says:

    this man is making a silly argument. private ownership of firearms is scientifically proven to lower crime. every impartial academic study has come to this conclusion. and if that doesn’t work we must try simple math with these people: 800000 to 2+ million DGUs to 12 to 15 thousand gun homicides its not hard to see that guns help more than hurt our society

    1. avatar Five says:

      Yes, the left use to ridicule those studies but they got torn to pieces so many times by the math that now they just ignore those studies and focus on innuendo by presenting numbers and imply they are related and relevant. There’s a pretty good book out on it, I can’t remember the title at the moment, will repost if I do remember.

  7. avatar Darkstar says:

    The best part of that little spiel is the disclaimer at the end.

    This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

    Uh huh, right……..

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Haha. Saw that.
      He’s getting taken to the wood shed in the comments section.

  8. avatar fishydude says:

    Another a-hole who confuses the illusion of safety with actual safety.
    The only people that are safer with less guns in public are the criminals and the corrupt. That is why big guv pols push gun control.

  9. avatar jandrews says:

    Well duh – they’re the same thing.

  10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    For one: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
    -Benjamin Franklin

    For another: gun rights do not pose a risk to public safety; criminals pose that risk. Infringing upon the gun rights of the law-abiding will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, nor will it prevent criminals from using guns in the commission of their crimes, nor will it prevent criminals from committing their crimes.

  11. avatar Brentondadams says:

    Lighten up Francis

  12. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

    If guns are unsafe, then why doesn’t every level of government offer free, non-mandatory safety courses through NRA and other responsible and experienced organizations? Insurance companies might even offer discounts for folks who get the training.

  13. avatar Roy says:

    False, gun rights are public safety.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    The argument masks the real problem. Which is (this is news to the gun community but) Bloombergview.com ain’t sh_t, but the people that work there are.


  15. avatar Fuque says:

    Yeah, Chicago is the flagship city of safety… everytime.

  16. avatar DerryM says:

    Consider what the effect would be if everyone who is non-LEO and who can carry legally, either Open or Concealed, stopped intervening in any crime, except to defend themselves or their blood kin from an immediate threat, for one Calendar Month.

    Would Law Enforcement notice? Would the Media notice? Would Politicians notice? Would pundits eventually figure it out and talk about it publicly?

    It’s an unworkable idea, with serious moral and conscience challenges, but an intriguing “What if..?”. I suppose one could take qualifying situations that are reported and get a theoretical idea of the effect. I think it would be statistically significant.

  17. avatar racer88 says:

    “In the U.S., there simply is no contest between gun rights and public safety.”

    In the U.S., there simply is no contest between __________ and ‘public safety.’

    – free speech
    – right to be secure in your person and belongings against unreasonable search and seizure.
    – right against self-incrimination.
    – trial by jury.
    – protection from unreasonable punishment.
    – freedom of religion.
    – right to assemble.
    – right to petition your representatives to redress grievances.

    And, so on. Yeah…. (the illusion of) “public safety” trumps all that.

  18. avatar patriot says:

    Damn it, these pesky liberties!!!!

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    “In the U.S., there simply is no conflict between gun rights and public safety.”

    FIFY, Francis.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Yep, came here to say that. There is no contest because the two (one a right and the other a concept) are not in opposition.

  20. avatar Gman says:

    I do not think it means what you think it means.
    Inigo Montoya

  21. avatar Pg2 says:

    Public or collective safety seems to be the propaganda vehicle the PTB are using to condition the public to willingly abdicate its liberties. This has been in overdrive since 9/11.

  22. avatar racer88 says:

    “In the U.S., there simply is no contest between gun rights and public safety.” – Francis Wilkinson

    Lighten up Francis. 😉

  23. avatar gsnyder says:

    How is it firearms make for an unsafe society? The anti-gun community always tossing out phrases with hopes some will stick.

  24. avatar Excedrine says:

    Classic False Choice fallacy from the Left. Logic need not apply to their thought process.

  25. avatar Dave says:

    Funny how the media always jumps on the sensational stories of the people killed by so many criminals, especially when it involves multiple people, but never runs the stories of lives saved when defending oneself. Of course, many of you have already alluded to that. Recently we have seen a rash of attacks at movie theatres. Why? Because guns are prohibited in theaters and if someone has decided to commit a mass shooting what better place. The shooter knows there will be no one shooting back. Is this a safety issue? Damn right it is – for the general public not allowed to lawfully arm ourselves. If we were, there would be no safety issue.
    I understand that the government, at whatever level, is faced with determining public safety. That is certainly one of the major purposes of government. And in a situation such as the Rodriguez household, let’s face it, it is certainly a difficult call. Because if he did get ahold of one of the family guns and injure himself or someone else the media would have a field day with it. And the police and local authorities would face the blame. So let’s be reasonable. The problem here is not whether this man had a mental issue. That was clearly determined by all involved, even by his own actions. So was safety an issue in the specific occurrence? Yes. But what the government at different levels, starting with the federal, are attempting to do is put a very broad definition to safety, starting with mental capacity. Claiming a person on social security is mentally incompetent just because they may need help their finances. Things of this nature. I don’t need to cover all the challenges here, as I am sure most of you are aware of them.
    I know and fully expect some of you to disagree with some of what I am posting. I understand the stance that anything obstructing our Second Amendment rights is wrong, just as anything stymieing any of our Constitutional rights is wrong. And I agree. However, again, let us be reasonable. Where a person has been deemed, truly deemed by medical professionals, mentally dangerous to himself and others, there must be recourse to protect that person and his family and the public. No, I do not agree with Robert Farago. I agree with most of you here that guns do not kill people, people kill people. And Mr. Rodriguez has proven himself one such possible person.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email