34 per day.

Via Mikeb302000, via Laci:

A common thread throughout the video is that almost nobody mentioned the shooter that was responsible, almost everything in that video blamed the gun or "gun violence."

"murdered with guns."

"killed with guns."

And at the end,

"In memory of the 34 Americans murdered every day by gun violence. Let's talk about reducing that number."

Yes, absolutely, let's do that!

Let's start by examining what has worked and what hasn't.

Here's what fails to show any real evidence that gun control laws have ever worked, anywhere:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

http://vpc.org/

http://www.ceasefireoregon.org/

http://www.fixgunchecks.org

Here's an example of something that has actual evidence to prove it works:

http://ceasefirechicago.org/

What's the difference? The gun control organizations mainly sit on their ass and work for government to implement useless laws and expect the police to do all the work on the street. These organizations and their supporters don't do anything directly that has any real effect on the "gun violence" they want to stop, instead wanting to put others (police) in harm's way to enforce gun control laws which have never really proven to have any positive effect anywhere they've been tried before.

Meanwhile, CeaseFire Chicago actually gets their hands dirty, getting down to business at the street level with violence prevention workers that work to stop violence where it occurs. Without calling for more useless gun control.

Back to some misguiding statements from the video:

"It makes no sense for anyone to possess or acquire a gun unless they pass a background check."

"If you don't close the loopholes, it's going to continue leaking, people will continue to die."

The whole premise of this assumes that a) you can actually force violent criminals to go through a background check, and b) that you can close all the "leaks" or routes for guns to get to the street and into the hands of criminals.

Even in the countries with the strictest, most well-enforced gun control, criminals still get a gun easily enough if they want them, and they don't need government permission to do it.

Yes, let's talk about reducing all violent crime, and I'll bet we could find some solutions that would actually work without infringing on the rights of individuals.

...Orygunner...

Safety at the cost of Liberty? No thanks!

Over at Baldr's blog, "A New Trajectory," I posted a comment in regards to (Child Access Prevention) laws for firearms. I suggested that such laws may save lives, asked if there were other alternatives that didn't involve infringing on our liberties and overriding our judgement. The the response was:

Are CAP laws overriding your judgement as a parent? Maybe, but their previsions tend to match what responsible gun owners do already. But if a few people are inconvenienced for the sake of the greater good, I am willing to support it.
- Baldr Odinson

He also stated he wasn't aware where CAP laws had ever cost any lives (you can read the rest of the discussion here).

Here is my response:

@Baldr: A primary example of CAP laws being directly responsible for 2 deaths:

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/deaths_in_merced.htm

There's no telling how many other people have died or become victims of other violent crime because laws required them to keep their firearms locked and unloaded, because such things are hard to count.

I will admit that this type of law may actually save more lives than it costs, but lives aren't the only thing to measure. What about the cost to our liberty, and the punishment by the law of innocent people guilty of nothing more than using their own judgement in violation of the law?

I do not think the "greater good" is EVER a reason to infringe on our rights. Such a "nanny state" mentality is wrong in my opinion by depriving a free people of their essential liberties.

The Declaration of Independence gives a clear, simple description of the purpose of government - The job of government is to protect our individual, unalienable rights by ensuring justice for those whose rights are harmed by punishing those that infringe upon the rights of others. Not to protect us from ourselves or ensure the "common good" at the price of our liberties. I doubt you will find ANY writings or speeches of ANY of the founding fathers that supports such an inherently flawed concept, and in fact will find many quotes to the contrary:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin.

If you want a nanny state to protect us from ourselves, I wish you and your like-minded comrades would go find some other country that doesn't care about individual rights to ruin, instead of continuing to try and gain public support in THIS country for your twisted ideas of what constitutes the "public good."

Some of us would rather live in the animated contest of freedom with all it's inherent chaos and protected liberties than a coddled life subject to overly-restrictive laws that make innocent people into criminals for victimless crimes like CAP laws do.

Some like yourself, may be willing to give up their liberty for a little perceived safety. I, and many others, are not.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? As always, all comments are welcome!

...Orygunner...

Gun Control Flaws 2.7, "What does it hurt? Hello, Unintended Consequences!"

A major problem with gun control "solutions" is their narrow perceived scope of cause and effect. Since most all gun control focuses on the tool used in violent firearm-related crime, it doesn't consider any of the other factors that are actually directly responsible for violent crime, such as socio-economic factors (poverty, prevalence of gangs), the failure of our criminal justice system to rehabilitate offenders before letting them go back onto the street, and how prohibitions actually serve to increase violent crime rates by creating a profitable enterprise for violent criminals.

Consider the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. The government saw a problem (abuse of alcohol), implemented a solution (ban it completely), and once it was implemented, received a stern lesson in Unintended Consequences.

With legal distribution and sales of alcohol now illegal, organized crime took over, making millions of dollars distributing the contraband, making it profitable for those willing to engage in a life of violent crime.

The same thing has occurred with the prohibition of recreational drugs - all the laws and money dumped into the "war on drugs" have had little proven effect to reduce consumption or demand, or even the supply. Being a profitable enterprise for those willing to disobey the law, the lure of "easy money" draws those in poverty with little other opportunity to succeed into gangs for illegal drug distribution. They must be violent to protect their distribution "turf" from other violent gangs.

The lesson to be learned is: When something there is a demand for is made contraband, those willing to disobey the law will step in, drawn by the profitability, to supply the demand - actually increasing the number of violent criminals on the street and thereby increasing violent crime.

Source: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Crime

Viewing the history of homicide in this country, note the slow increase in the homicide rate leading up to and during prohibition, then the sharp drop right at the end. Note the same increase with the ramp-up on the "war on drugs" in the 60's.

Now consider the similarities in what's happened with increasing gun control:

Back before the Gun Control Act of 1968, except for some states, anybody had open access to purchase firearms from a legal gun dealer. Pretty much anyone could buy a gun, even through mail order. It stands to reason that since there was no real prohibition, guns were no different than any other item bought and sold on the street - perhaps a gun was stolen merchandise, but otherwise there was nothing special about them, because they could just as easily be bought from almost anywhere.

Now flash forward 40+ years to our current state, where the supply to "prohibited persons" within the US is limited - They can no longer buy directly from FFL dealers if they can't pass a background check, but it hasn't actually been proven to stop any significant number of violent criminals from getting their hands on a gun - instead, it has bolstered the "black market" on the street, making guns a profitable commodity for those willing to disobey the prohibition and sell to those that aren't allowed by law to possess a gun.

As we see with anything else we prohibit where a demand exists, the more tightly we try and regulate guns, not only will the law not have any significant effect keeping them out of the hands of "prohibited persons," but the black market on the street (and the number of criminals running it) will actually increase to meet the demand.

Not quite the result that gun control advertises, is it?

...Orygunner...

Gun Control Flaws 2.5, "What does it hurt? Plenty!"

Background checks revolve around the concept of a list of people determined to be "prohibited persons," based solely on the assumption that such people are more likely to commit crimes involving firearms. While originally this discrimination started with convicted felons, it has since spread to include people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, people who have been institutionalized for mental illness, and people with current restraining orders against them. The current push is to "close the [so-called] Terror Gap," and prohibit the purchase of firearms to people merely SUSPECTED of being involved in whatever they define as "terrorism."

So we know from experience that a prohibition simply doesn't effect those willing to break the law - they will continue to get their guns, either with straw buyers, or steal them, or get them from the black market on the street. So what's wrong with making it harder for dangerous people to get guns?

First of all, with the wide variety of felony crimes our society has created, many of them victimless, a good many of these felons are NOT a danger to society, even if they have firearms in their possession. Consider some of the famous examples: Tim Allen (comedian) has a felony conviction for drug possession. Martha Stewart has a felony conviction related to her illegal stock trading. How is our society made better for prohibiting these people from possessing firearms for any good purposes?

While there ARE many convicted felons that really are a danger to society, if they are willing to disregard the laws prohibiting them from hurting innocent people, they're going to disregard the laws that prohibit them from having a firearm if they really want one. The only felons effected by this prohibition are the ones that choose to obey it, and the facts prove the ones obeying the law aren't the ones we need to be concerned about.

For individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, I actually know someone that fell into this category. My acquaintance Pete was living with his girlfriend when they got into an argument. He is well over 6' tall and she was over a foot shorter than him and less than half his weight. The argument got physical - she started the attack by jumping on him, knocked him over, and began flailing at him with her fists. He grabbed her, threw her off of him, and she hit a piece of furniture, causing a scrape and bruise on her back. He called the police to report the attack. When the cops arrived, she denied ever striking him and played the "poor abused girlfriend" sob story. The cops looked at him (with no visible signs of injury), looked at her bruise, ignored his side of the story and arrested only him. In spite of having a lawyer, the judge did the same thing, looked at the size of him, the size of her, believed her lies and convicted him. He has now lost his right to keep and bear arms under Federal law FOR LIFE unless he can get the conviction overturned on appeal (which he doesn't have the money to continue to fight), or gets a pardon from the governor.

Now I wasn't there, of course, so I only have the word of one party involved, but this kind of thing DOES occur. I also know people that have had restraining orders filed against them maliciously by an angry ex-wife (used as a tool to guarantee her custody of the kids), and that the prohibition of people with current restraining orders against them results in the restriction of people's rights without even being convicted of a crime! We know that truly dangerous people with restraining orders against them will break the law to go attack and kill their target, and sometimes they even use a gun - how is this prohibition supposed to work again?

The push to prohibit "suspected terrorists" is even worse, because the list is "secret." You have no way of even identifying IF you are on the list, WHY you are on the list, and removal from this list is next to impossible. It can result in people's rights being restricted with absolutely no due process, no convictions of a crime, and basically no redress. Those that really are terrorists willing to harm people won't be stopped by a simple law, and if they are denied their purchase, they may even realize they are now tagged as "suspicious" and change their plans to evade further suspicion.

Any of these prohibitions ONLY effect those who are willing to obey them. Trying to determine who is "dangerous" by these factors alone is a gross abuse of government, and in trying to protect us from these "prohibited persons" possibly abusing the right to keep and bear arms, they prohibit the good and rightous exercise of it. We throw many of these prohibited people who are NOT dangerous under the bus, in an ineffective attempt to prohibit the dangerous ones from getting guns, which doesn't work.

Either we all have equal rights, or we don't. We ALL have the equal right of self defense, and that means the equal right to an effective means of self defense of our life and liberty - This is the root behind the right to keep and bear arms. All people have this right, even if our government enacts unjust laws prohibiting it.

...Orygunner...

Gun Control Flaws 2.0, "What does it hurt? Plenty!"

Gun control advocates not only ignore the fact that their measures have never worked anywhere they've been tried, but they also ignore the negative effects that gun control laws have on law-abiding citizens. They justify the infringement on the rights of regular citizens by claiming that we "shouldn't have a problem with reasonable regulations," and "what does it hurt?"

The answer is: They aren't reasonable and it hurts plenty.

Consider one of the staple "safety measures" of the gun control crowd, waiting periods. They suggest that it helps eliminate "crimes of passion" where someone in a relationship gone wrong is driven to violence, goes down to the gun store, walks out with a gun, and goes to commit a murder or murder-suicide. The problem with this scenario is that it really doesn't happen often enough to be concerned with, if it even happens at all. The average "time to crime" between when a handgun is purchased from a dealer and the commission of a violent crime is years on average.

A common reason to need a firearm immediately is self-defense. If someone has an immediate need for a firearm to protect themselves, a five, ten, or 15 day waiting period can mean the difference between their life and death. While there are "time to crime" studies, there aren't any particular statistics of people that would have bought a firearm but couldn't, and died as a result. However, just because there aren't statistics doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

There are, however, plenty of examples and evidence of people that were able to defend themselves because they had a gun.

http://thearmedcitizen.com/

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Some of these examples and statistics are people that had recently acquired a firearm because their situation demanded the need - does it worth making some of them go defenseless through a "waiting period" in a feeble attempt to prevent the very rare "crime of passion" that a waiting period may deter?

More examples soon in "Gun control Laws 2.3, 'What does it hurt? Plenty!'"

...Orygunner...

Gun Control Flaws, Part 1: "Plugging the holes."

I see a lot of gun control advocates suggesting that making it harder for convicted criminals, the mentally ill, and other prohibited persons to get guns is the best and/or only way to make our society safer from "gun violence."

On the surface, that almost sounds like a good idea that might actually work as advertised, except for two flaws such advocates seem to ignore:

1. Making it harder doesn't actually STOP those determined to break the law, because

2. It's impossible to stop enough of the sources of guns to dangerous people as long as they are free to walk the streets without a custodian.

Because I love analogies, let's compare the flow of guns to the street with a leaky bucket of water.

Gun control advocates believe that if we simply plug all the holes in the bucket, criminals can't get the water. The mistake in this reasoning is that determined individuals who are willing to break the law are extremely resourceful - they will always find ways around the rules and laws we put in place to deter or prevent them from getting what they want.

In our bucket analogy, if we plug all the holes, the criminals will either a) make their own new holes, b) simply go dip from the top of the bucket, or c) find another less-protected bucket!

This is evidenced by the so-called "war on drugs." Making recreational drugs illegal has closed down almost every "legal" means for people to get them. Those people who want the drugs and are willing to break the law to get them has created the demand. The government has tried to plug as many holes as possible with laws and enforcement, yet those criminals willing to break the law for their own use or to supply the demand simply manufacture or grow more (poke more holes in the bucket), cheat the prohibition by lying to get perscriptions for narcotics or medical marijuana (dipping from the top of the bucket) or smuggle it in across the border (get it from someone else's bucket).

The statistics on drug use seem to show that "making it harder" really hasn't had a significant effect on actual usage. In spite of new laws and an ever-increasing budget for the "war on drugs," levels are seemingly unaffected by "making it harder" over the last 20+ years.

What makes gun control advocates think the results of gun control are going to be any different? Why is it that any country in the world that has tried to "make it harder" for "dangerous" people to get guns has seen no consistent or significant effect because of it?

Because there's only one effective way to make sure dangerous people don't get firearms - Incarcerate them until they are no longer a danger to others. As long as criminals and other dangerous people are free to walk the streets, simply "making it harder" isn't making it hard enough to make a difference for those willing to disobey the law.

You may ask, "So what? Why shouldn't we make it harder for them? What does it hurt?" Look for part 2 coming soon discussing the negative side effects and unintended consequences of "making it harder."

...Orygunner...

There was a WHAT behind my target?

The last rule of Jeff Cooper's 4 rules of firearm safety is: Be sure of your target.

This not only means what you are intending to hit, but what is behind and beyond your intended target as well.

Movies, of course, give us some wonderful examples of what not to do:

Of course I'm sure it's all for the dramatic effect, but what kind of police officers completely ignore the fact that there are several cars and an entire busload full of people immediately behind what they're shooting at?

Of course our politicians also lead the way with shining examples of carelessness. Who can forget Dick Cheney's 2006 hunting accident where he peppered another hunter in his party with birdshot? And watch this recent hunting episode of Sarah Palin's Alaska:

All sorts of people complained about her lack of shooting skill, that she wasn't a real hunter, etc. etc. I don't really care about any of that, what disturbs me the most is where the animal was when she shot it. I don't care if they're 500 miles from the nearest civilization, they don't know what's on the other side of that ridge! One lesson repeated in hunter's safety courses is never shoot at an animal on a ridgeline, because of precisely that reason.

One deer hunting season several years ago, my oldest nephew Corey and I were dropped off up above a series of sloped clearings to walk down, and my wife went down to the bottom to watch for anything we may scare her direction. After she had waited for awhile, she heard some noises and looked up the hill, and saw a beautiful 3 or 4 point buck just 20 or 30 yards away. Just as she put her sights on the animal, just over the deer's shoulder she saw a glimpse of our two orange hats a couple hundred yards up the hill coming her direction. She instantly took her aim off the deer, but by the time she started to re-position for a better shot that was not in our direction, the deer disappeared into the brush. I am thankful my wife looked at what was beyond her target, because it's hard to enjoy venison when you're dead.

I recommend an interesting website called The Box O' Truth that answers the question, "exactly how many walls will this gun shoot a bullet/shot/slug through?"

"It's an .88 Magnum."... "It shoots through schools."

If your home defense weapon is a handgun or a rifle, you should understand that some rounds will go through multiple walls, doors, and rooms. If you don't keep that in mind, you may end up with a larger tragedy on your hands than just a home invasion.

Whether you're hunting, or defending yourself with a firearm, or even just plinking in the woods, you must know exactly what you're shooting at and what's behind it.

...Orygunner...

Watch where you're pointing that thing!

Muzzle control is one of the most important firearm safety skills, and unfortunately, like keeping the finger off the trigger, it doesn't come naturally to people - it has to be a conscious, learned skill.

Rule # 2 of Jeff Cooper's Four Rules of Firearms Safety is, "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy."

Twice I've been in a classroom of students when the instructor calls up a student to demonstrate how to shoulder a rifle. Sure enough, the student swings the gun around sweeping the muzzle across the class, and everybody ducks under their desk or table. This of course allows the instructor to go over that safety rule with that episode as a reminder - I almost wonder if the instructor knows this is going to happen, but I'll chalk it up to coincidence.

Of course, our motion picture media is also full of poor examples of following this rule:

And of course our beloved politicians during publicity shoots:

Keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction all the time is an absolute must. Even if you're checked the firearm and believe with all your heart and soul that the gun is unloaded, you can't have a different "unloaded" behavior than "loaded" behavior. Otherwise you end up making (Caution: Links have graphic images of "accidental" self-inflicted gunshot wounds) mistakes like these.

Another note about muzzle control that was brought up during the Hunter Safety Course my kids took last year is concrete floors. I've always focused on keeping the muzzle pointed down, but you also have to be aware of concrete or very hard floors and where a ricochet may strike. Keeping a gun pointed at the concrete floor isn't very safe if the shot ricochets and a bullet or pellets bounce up into someone's undercarriage. Keep it pointed up or in another safe direction at all times in those situations.

Be aware of your muzzle at all times, do not let it point at anything you do not wish to destroy, and even if all other safety rules go out the window, this one rule could eliminate almost all firearm-related accidents.

...Orygunner...

I didn't know it was loaded!

Continuing my out-of order sequence of Jeff Cooper's 10 rules of firearms safety, I'll jump back to number 1: All guns are always loaded.

Now obviously, all guns are not always loaded, so what's the rule mean? It means we always believe all guns are always loaded and always treat them that way, no exceptions.

In Middle School, I was privileged to attend an Outdoor Education class, an 8th grade 2-quarter elective class taught by Mr. D'Amico. He was an older (in his early 60's?) Italian guy that had more life in him than any other guy his age that I knew. He was an avid outdoorsman, and in his class we learned not just firearms safety (shooting highly accurate pellet guns in the extended classroom), but his knowledge of hunting and fishing.

He had a sobering story about the importance of Rule #1. When he was a teenager, my teacher's oldest brother was proud of his "quick draw" skills. He asked the next youngest brother to go get the revolver out of the gun cabinet so he could practice and show his skill to his family. The oldest brother carefully unloaded the firearm and even had his next-oldest brother verify that yes, it was unloaded, then proceeded to quick draw against his brothers with the unloaded revolver. For some reason or another the oldest brother got called away. He took off the gun belt and set it on the counter. The next oldest brother thought he was all finished, put the cartridges back in the gun and was going to put it away in the gun cabinet when he got distracted by something else. When the older brother came back, he put the gun belt back on, and when the other brother came back into the room, the oldest brother showed him his quick-draw skill one last time, killing him.

Sure there were some odd circumstances leading up to the tragedy, but had rule #1 been followed, the oldest brother wouldn't have the lifelong guilt of knowing he killed one of his brothers.

"I thought it was unloaded" doesn't bring the bullet back when you learn you were wrong. It's a pretty shallow excuse when someone's lying on the floor bleeding to death and you were in control of the firearm.

"I didn't know it was loaded" should be followed with, "so I assumed it was loaded anyway."

...Orygunner...

Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!

I happened to be walking through the local Barnes and Noble bookstore lately with my 13 year old son (he received a gift card from some relatives for Christmas). While browsing through the store, I happened to spy Roger Moore's autobiography My Word is My Bond, and I immediately noticed a problem.

I called over my son. "Hey, look at this book."

"That looks stupid, I don't want to buy that one."

"No, I don't want you to buy it." I pointed at the cover and asked, "what's wrong with this picture?"

My son immediately said, "he's got his finger on the trigger."

I'm so proud of my boy, I have taught him well. I ought to reward him by taking him out shooting more often :)

Just on a whim, I decided to do a Google search of Roger Moore, and am surprised to find that in every damn picture of him holding a gun, he's got his finger on the trigger. Actually, it seems to be a common infliction for most all of the Bonds.

On further research, I find it occurs far too much in Hollywood. After an extensive search of Google images, every single movie poster I could find where someone's holding a gun and not actively involved in firing it, their finger is definitely inside the trigger guard and resting on the trigger.

Rule number three of Jeff Cooper's rules of Firearms Safety is "Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target." Or, my favorite translation of that rule: "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch!"

Allow my son to demonstrate:

Finger straight, along the frame of the firearm, until the sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot. Pretty simple rule, huh? Yet I constantly see action movie stars with their fingers on the trigger for no good reason far more frequently than I should. Unfortunately, some people I see handling firearms in real life also have the same bad habit.

No wonder we still have too many firearm-related accidents when we see these kind of slopppy gun handling examples in the media all the time:

How ironic that he's breaking Rule #3, no?

More discussion of the rest of the 4 rules for firearms safety coming soon.

...Orygunner...

A proposed solution for a safer society that has guns in it.

In addition to picking apart the statements and suggestions of those opposed to the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, I feel I should also offer some suggestions that would actually help make our country safer.

My belief is that in a country such as ours, which has the highest rate of gun ownership of any country in the world (approximately 90 guns per 100 people), we should be putting more effort into firearms safety.

I don't believe that any training should be mandatory to own or buy a gun, because when you put restrictions on a right, it is then treated like a privilege, only allowed to be legally exercised after meeting what could be arbitrarily set conditions. Once you allow a right to be treated like a privilege by the government, that privilege may be revoked.

Instead, a much more effective method that would include more than just gun owners, would be mandatory education in schools, and for public education to embrace, instead of shun, the proper gun culture in this country.

For elementary education, mandatory gun safety training explaining the danger of firearms, with emphasis on "Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area, and tell an adult." How many of the children involved in firearms accidents have ever had any proper education to KNOW that's what they're supposed to do if they find a gun?

In Middle School, continue the same mandatory education, except expand it to include some optional safe firearms handling. Allow an optional strictly supervised marksmanship and firearms handling safety class. One middle school I attended back in the 80's had an "outdoor education" class, where we shot pellet guns in an extended classroom with direct supervision and a great focus on gun handling safety. Completion of the class even counted towards the hunter's safety certificate required by the state for a youth hunting license.

In High School, there should be mandatory classes on self defense. This doesn't even have to have any substantial focus on firearms, but instead steps to avoid using physical force to defend yourself. Situational awareness, crime prevention steps for the home, how to avoid becoming a target for a criminal to begin with. There should also be some instruction on what options there are if you ARE the target of a violent criminal attack, what legal and moral responsibilities go along with defending yourself with physical and/or deadly force. Shooting sports should also be offered at the high school levels, such as marksmanship and sporting clay target shooting. Shooting sports do have a better safety record than any other sport, with less injuries than any other physical sport - even golf!

Just like our public schools try to help prepare our children by teaching sex education and drug education, we could also be teaching gun education as well. Many high schools have mandatory classes teaching "personal finance" to try and get them ready for the real world of bills and balancing checkbooks. There is no good reason why we shouldn't also include education for how to avoid becoming a victim and what options there are if it becomes unavoidable. Much of the education could come from the optional classes and extra-curricular activities (after-school shooting sports).

Just like parents have the ability to "opt-out" their children from sex education and drug education classes, they could also be the option where parents can have their children excluded from gun education classes as well.

Such a plan would have far more advantages by educating more of our youth about proper gun safety and their responsibilities of self defense. I don't see any downsides that outweigh that benefit.

As always, your comments are encouraged.

...Orygunner...

Save one life? What's it worth to you?

I often see a suggestion from gun control advocates that they support gun control because they believe it will save lives, or even (to paraphrase), "It we can save just one life our efforts will be worth it."

The problem with such limited thinking is that they do not consider all the possible effects of the laws they wish to implement. I'll actually agree, that some gun control may actually save some lives, but looking at the overall picture, not a considerable amount, and the unintended consequences outweigh the benefit.

Take, for example, mandatory waiting periods to purchase firearms. I'll concede that there may actually be a very few instances where someone would, in a fit of anger, go buy a gun just to kill someone with it, and if they had to wait 5 or 10 days, they would cool down and change their mind. Statistics show this is a very rare event, as the average purchase "time to crime" for firearms is a year or longer depending on the type.

So let's just agree it would save at least the "one life" that the gun control advocates are after. Success, right?

Not if you consider the unintended consequences.

Far more common than buying a gun in the "heat of passion" to kill someone is people who want a firearm for personal protection. How many people, needing a firearm immediately to defend themselves against a known, imminent threat, will become victims because they had to wait 5 or 10 days for a firearm to protect themselves?

So consider: Is the one life you save with gun control worth the one life that is taken because it prevented someone from defending themselves? Or, how many rapes? is the one life saved worth 5 rapes? 10? 100?

I don't know how many lives are saved by gun control vs. how many people are left defenseless. Has such a study ever been done? There is plenty of evidence that gun control doesn't seem to have any effect on violent crime rates involving firearms, and there is also anecdotal evidence that proves some people that were denied purchasing a firearm because of a "waiting period" become victims unable to defend themselves in the face of an imminent threat.

There is not one gun control law I can think of that doesn't have negative side effects that more than offset any positive result. Lives saved? I'll admit there MAY be few - Very few. Is that minor advantage worth the lives lost and people victimized because they were denied their right of effective self defense? What about the other costs, such as charging and punishing people for victimless crimes, or denying people the free exercise of their rights? Are those negative consequences of gun control worth it?

Is it worth saving one life if you deny someone else the right to save their own?

...Orygunner...