Alphecca

I know this is is a cliche, but it's still just as true as the day is long...Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than, not just one of my guns, but my ENTIRE gun collection.
Molon Labe, you sons of bitches. COME AND TAKE 'EM.

I don't want to be rude, Jeff, but it seems to me that you only addressed the easy point that they made: ban handguns, and only criminals will have them. Sure, that's easy to see.

Harder to address (although I have no doubt you can do it, and do it well) are their points about:

1) "...the majority of killings occur after two men argue and one or both pull out guns."

2) "...only 160 of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year are employed in legitimate self-defense..."

3) "...guns in the home are used seven times more often for homicide than for self-defense."

I think all of these points can be rebutted, but I'm not as well-educated on RKBA and its effects on society as I should be — which is why I read your blog.

So please edumicate me (and others) so we can effectively debate these points with the gun control nuts. Or point me in the right direction to find this kind of information myself. I'm certainly willing to put in some work on it.

I am not Jeff, but I can address this point...

"...only 160 of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year are employed in legitimate self-defense..."

This one was an outright fabrication. Depending on which study one cites, the number of defensive gun uses in the United States is somewhere between 800,000 and 3 million per year. A study by the Clinton Justice Department -- certainly no friend of the American gun owner -- found that number to be between 1.5-3 million. Now, we can debate the validity of these studies all day long. But I would highly recommend you visit the web site keepandbeararms.com; one of this site's ongoing projects, Operation Self-Defense, tracks news stories on defensive gun uses, and even a cursory observation of it will show that the number of defensive gun uses the Post cited in that case is ridiculously low.

I was just gonna post about #2 & #3 there, Boyd. The idea is an old one - that a gun in the home is much more likely to kill you than protect you.

But here's the thing - they use sleight-of-hand when they say that. They are looking at the "legal intervention" category of causes of death to come up with that 120 number (I assume - it's not like either editorial cited sources). And that's the trick! Because, obviously, you can be protected by a firearm without killing the attacker. The truth is, the vast majority of defensive gun uses don't involve a single shot being fired.

This is, in fact, the case. Given the sensitive nature of the subject, numbers are understandably hard to pin down as people are reluctant to admit to strangers they used a gun. But there are estimates (including surveys done by the government, though I've lost the link) that range anywhere from 100,000+ to 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) each year.

No, that's not a typo. Millions, according to Gary Kleck, a professional criminologist. Google him. Or try John Lott, or "defensive gun uses". Heck, visit Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Defense Blog where they compile stories of defensive gun uses that make the media. And that's only the ones that we hear about. How many, MANY more uses never reach the ears of the press (or the police)?

But don't believe me - seriously, don't. Go online and find out for yourself, go to the original sources, see the figures with your own eyes. That way, the next time you hear or read someone spouting dishonest drivel like the Post editorials, you can quickly and confidently correct them. The facts are on our side - don't hesitate to use them!

D'oh! Beat to the punch.

"I know this is is a cliche, but it's still just as true as the day is long...Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than, not just one of my guns, but my ENTIRE gun collection"

The problem with having a bunch of military surplus rifles is that you can't say that with any degree of confidence. (I've got one American made Mosin-Nagant that pretty likely killed Soviets in the winter war, and might have killed germans in the first world war.)

I believe we do ourselves and our cause a disservice by engaging in any discussion on that with these idiots. A wise man once said, "Don't wrestle with the pig, you'll just get dirty and the pig likes it."

By trying to rebut thier arguments you lend weight to them where none is warranted. Thier arguments are a moot point, the Constitution says "The Right to bear arms shall not be abridged". THAT is the only argument that needs to be (or should be) made.

"guns in the home are used seven times more often for homicide than for self-defense."

For the reasons stated above I don't for a minute buy their phony stats, but the editorial manages to shoot itself in the foot. It doesn't distinguish between guns in the home being used for justifiable vs non-justifiable homicide (unless it's in the full editorial, which I haven't read).

Perp

Thanks for all the responses. I've only recently achieved my heightened interest in RKBA issues, so I'm working hard to get myself educated.

Rorschach, on the one hand I tend to agree with your point about not engaging in discussion with people who are so steeped in their positions, that they refuse to acknowledge reality. On the other hand, when an opinion leader such as the Post publishes out-and-out nonsense, people believe the inaccuracies to be the truth. It's somewhat analogous to the President going for years without adequately responding to critics of the Iraq war, leading public opinion to believe things that just aren't true.

Since I live in the DC exurbs (might even be considered suburbs these days, the way the metropolitan area has expanded), I subscribe to the dead-tree version of the Post. Their editorial staff have appeared to me to be much less liberal than their supposedly objective news staff. This editorial, IMHO, is an extreme outlier among their positions in recent years. Yes, they're reliably liberal, but they have shown the willingness to actually think, reason, walk their way through the logic in order to come to a position. I suspect that, in this case, they started with their end point, and started picking and choosing their "facts" in order to justify themselves.

Thanks again for the responses. And especially for the pointers to additional sources of information. That will really help me in my efforts to deepen my understanding of firearms reality.

It might be true that if we immediately arrested, prosecuted and punished those who advocate curtailing our Constitutionally recognised rights (note that I did not say Constitutionally granted there...) we would not be safe from other attacks...
But it would make me feel a lot better, and thats' the point, right?
Barring that, how about some savvy person write a good editorial for the WaPo, pointing out the dangers of inacurate, unresponsible journalism, and call for a nationwide ban?

I just have to say I love this website. First Jeff posted a thoughtful and forceful analysis refuting the general premis of the WaPo propoganda peice, then in the comments everyone else performed a total vivisection of WaPo's arguments and fabricated statistics and refuted those. By the time I got here there was nothing else to add. Thanks for the great reading.

I just wanted to add a link to a great resource for refuting anti-gunners.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

I have one more thing to add... I am deeply sobered by the fact that 230 years after our Declaration of Independence, we are still at war with those who just don't seem to think it was a good idea.
Keep your powder dry, and meet them at the bridge!