Society or government can't control the better angels of our nature. They can control access to the most destructive tools of destruction. had the hijackers on flight 93 had guns, that plane probably would have made it to attack Washington. I doubt anyone will be able to commandeer a passenger plane with knives of any kind ever again. Had Adam Lanza not had a high capacity clip rifle, someone may have had an opportunity to save some of those children. US citizens have no legitimate need for assault weapons or high capacity clips. They are desired as higher powered toys in the woods and shooting ranges. Unfortunately, that also leaves them available to be used as weapons of mass destruction by troubled people that government, society, or family can often not control. The point of this article is what? People are bad and gun control advocates are shrill?

I searched in vain for the point of this piece.  Perhaps it's things don't kill, people do?  Hardly a brilliant insight.  Here's some numbers to mull in lieu of mere self-evident observations:

US - 270 million guns;  89 guns/100 people;  10.2 gun deaths /100k people

UK- 4 million guns;  7 guns/100 people;  .22 gun deaths /100k people

Gun ownership rate in US is roughly 13 times higher than Britain's, gun death rate is over 46 times higher.

Even if I grant you the assumption that people in Britain are for some reason 'better' than those in the US (despite soccer hooligans), do you think they are 46 times better? Gun culture matters.  That the ready availability of guns causes more deaths is undeniable, any argument seeking to deminish that reality is absurd.

Jeff Jacoby - proving once again that if you say something enough times, believe in it fervently and provide an endless stream of anecdotal examples to prove it, it must therefor be so.

More Heritage Foundation and NRA drivel.  Mr. Jacoby did not step one back further and take note of the acceptance of violence by this society.  High prison populations, non sport weapons, extremely high murder rates compared to other developed countries, major divisions in the distribution of goods from one economic class to another, and ghetto-izing of our communities have all contributed to a daily supply of 30 violent deaths per day.  Mr. Jacoby's approach mistakenly thinks we can punish our way out of this problem and by arming the "good guys" whoever they are.  We once tried to settle a societal issue with civil warfare and managed to get over 700,000 citizens killed and still needed another 150 years or so to make some decent progress.  We have to do more to break down gated fiefdoms to move away from confronting pressing issues and think more about building responsible communities.  Much harder work but to be successful with such deep problems in our culture the easier road is a recipe for continued disaster.

 Exactly Mr. Jacoby.  And that's why we often need to take away those things -- like weapons -- which allow man to act upon their malevolent impulses.

Exactly Mr. Jacoby. And that's why we often need to take away those things -- like weapons -- which allow man to act upon their malevolent impulses. 

I think Jeff makes a profound point here. It is simply not enough to restrict access to the tools of evil intent. There is also a need to make evil behavior taboo, and to make righteous behavior universally appealing. The issue is not just too many guns, but too much moral decay. I can't say I know the answer, but I agree with Jeff that it is a far deeper problem than most solutions seek to address. We need prayer in school, we need parents to marry before having children.....we need a God focused and God Fearing culture.

Just when I thought your editorials couldn't get more inane.....................

I have always found this argument that Jeff makes utterly and completely pointless.  If "all" men were good at heart we would not have to create weapons of any kind and if all men were evil at heart.  Well the end result of that is fairly obvious.  It would seem obvious that all men are nothing but a compilation of their genes and their experiences.  Some are indeed hard wired for maleolence to others evil is abhorrent. For most of  us we are fairly capable of a wide range of things.  As one who has experienced war I know given the right set of circumstances what I am capable of and I consider that evil. 

The question truly is, What is the point of civilization if it is not to contain mens capacity towards evil.  We create as many buffers as possible between our evil inclinations and those things that give us the capacity to inflict evil and cruelty upon the world.  We seem to be completely capable of preventing large scale evil when it is in the interest of our species.  We also seem capable of preventing it as long as it doesn't get in the way of our own evil greed. 

People such as Jeff however only see evil as it pertains to the obvious but never sees the pernicious evil that flows through civilization.  Murder Jeff sees as evil, yet ignorance and want he sees only as an abstraction and not as a result of evil.  Jeff like so many sees only the evil of the monsters in our world and fails to see the evil when he and I look in the mirror.  Sadly he sees only his own goodness and not the evil some of his beliefs may lead us to. 

Nice plug for the book...no thanks.  Once again (as you point out) human nature shown - in this case $$ motivation.  Sigh.....

Speaking of impulses - writing this column probably was a good example of a negative impulse.  Did you want to make sure that you got out something topical on the day that the kids were returning to school?  I'm not curious about your view, but I am amazed that with 28 deaths - 20 of whom were children - you feel that the same dreary arguments about gun rights would be just what we needed.  Walk a mile in the shoes of the Sandy Hook community - put yourself in the new school location this morning and if you still believe that any measure we take to control the likelihood of a similar incident is unacceptable then I guess that's - well I guess it's just what I'd expect after reading many of your columns.

Guns don't kill people, people _with_ guns kill people.  The more guns there are in circulation, and the easier we make it to get one, the more people will die.  Crazy or bad people with knives can harm and kill, but don't have nearly the same capacity to greive us as those with guns.  Crazy or bad people with traditional guns can harm and kill more people that those with knives, but don't have the same capacity as those with automatic guns.  There was an attack similar to the Sandy Hook one by a man weilding a knife at about the same time that the horror of Sandy Hook took place, but no one died.  The attacker had a knife, so no one died.  Not because the attacker was somehow a "better" person than the Sandy Hook attacker, but because the "things" were less able to kill.  http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

Lanza was not good or evil, he was sick. Who can ascertain the state of each individuals mind? The only solution is to limit the availability of deadly weapons.

I am still trying to figure out what this article is supposed to say. While I try to do that, this struck me as incredibly flawed persuasive reasoning: 

"But that can only be true if crime is rooted in the bad character, depraved values, or evil choices of those who use guns to murder. And that can only be true if men and women, by and large, are not innately good and kind — if decent behavior, like monstrous behavior, is a matter of free choice, not a hard-wired instinct."

Even if you accept the premise that crime is rooted in people and their choices, it does not necessarily follow that all people are not innately good and kind. How did you get from Point A to Point B? 

People are not innately good, neither are they innately evil. The concepts of good and evil are socially constructed, they are a part of one's environment and are fostered by a community. This is why education, whether within the confines of a family or institutionally in a school, is the bedrock of a healthy society. If you have a community in which everyone carries a concealed weapon, loaded and ready to fire, what kind of values does that inculcate in a child? What does that say about the individuals in a community? What is the image of the human condition, of the values of that society, if it is considered valuable to carry a loaded gun everywhere? If my teachers and my school administration deem it necessary to carry a loaded gun? And what do I think when my parents take me to another country, to Canada, England, or Germany, in which no one carries a loaded gun? What kind of conclusions should I draw about *my* community in regard to good and evil when everyone feels the need to carry a loaded gun?

Lots of good comments today.  Sometimes I wonder if Jeff actually lays out some of these arguments knowing full well that the logic is going to be exposed as being full of holes.  It's almost as if cardboard cutout targets of the primitive reasoning behind right wing explanations is set up for target practice.    Another angle on the line of thinking in todays piece is that in a perverse way it ends up being bedfellows with the mindset which is clinging to gun ownership out of irrational fear.  The irrational part is mult-layered, but can be suggested by the tragic event in CT recently when a father shot and killed his own son, thinking he was an intruder.  The lesson of that story is that gun usage by well-meaning people is frought with unintended and dangerous consequences.  The follow up logic to that is that gun ownership, for purposes of protection from evil in the world, is a catastrophe waiting to happen for the average person.  Jacoby is onto something about human nature having basic problems.  Yet again he comes to a conclusion which would not be supported by his own initial premise.

Mr. Jacoby, shame, shame on you for confronting emotionalism and agendas with facts.

Fact:  I have owned guns for over 45 years, never, not once did one of my guns jump off a shelf, or climb out of a gun rack and shoot anyone.  There is even an awful, terrible AR15 in there.  I keep an eye on it though, it just might be teaching my other calm guns bad things.  I have heard stories about AR15's being intrinsically evil.

Fact: Freedom comes with a price tag.  That tag reads:  RISK.  So today we ban evil guns according to Dianne Feinsteins plan.  Next week, some lunatic uses several revolvers to commit an atrocity.  Fine, we ban evil revolvers.  Then it is lever action rifles.  Ban 'em.  Then we notice that too many people are now dying from high speed car collisions involving alcohol.  Prohibition.  Still too many deaths we say!  Force automobile manufacturers to make less powerful cars.  Still too many deaths.  Pass legislation to force people to ride trains and buses.  Of course no one is going to allow all that, it is ridiculous.

Fact:  Someone or some group is always going to be unhappy about something and want laws passed to prohibit whatever it is they do not like.  They will then conjure up a huge emotional argument that involves making anyone who does not agree with them appear to be irrational, when in fact, they are the irrational ones.  They will reject any solution to the problem that does not agree with their pre-chosen solution.

Fact:  Other countries are not the United States.  Comparing what England or Australia has done is irrelevant.  They do not share the same traditions or history as our country, that makes them culturally different.  To ignore that difference is foolish.

For those who like to state that our forefathers did not really mean to arm the citizenry to protect themselves against the government, they did leave us some clues in their writings:

.”A free people ought to be armed.”
~George Washington

”[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
~James Madison

.”The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
~Thomas Jefferson

.”The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
~Thomas Jefferson

.”And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
~Thomas Jefferson

.”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
~George Washington
 

As for those who would advocate more gun control laws, consider this:

.”The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20.”
~Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb)

.”Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~Benjamin Franklin

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
- Patrick Henry -

mr jacoby is a bs artist.

BS, is not exactly lying, and bs remains bs whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bs's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bs is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are. - Harry G Franfurst, On BS

Sugar is the culprit, not the people that eat it. Quickly, pass an amendment to ban all sugar.

Let's boil down the logic a little more concretely:

For these horrific events to occur, you need bad people and weapons (implied).  I would rather focus on how people are bad.  Here are a few anecdotal stories.  Bible says people are bad.  Let's not restrict guns.  End.

People being truly good at heart doesn't really come in at all, what to do about it if people aren't really good at heart etc.

Wow.

In some ways I am really disappointed at the level of logic and reasoning here, in some ways it is instructive of why the country gets stuck so much.  One side wants to convince the other using logic and reasoning, the other has no use for these things.

Oh, for God's sakes!  If Adam Lanza could only get his hands on a knife and not high caliber guns things would have been a lot less horrifying.

Grow up, Jacoby.

Jeff, you are right. "Human beings are not naturally good." A recent study showed that more drivers swerved to run over turtles, than the drivers who made the effort to avoid the turtles!

I rarely agree with Jacoby and I'm not sure I'd say people are basically evil, but I do think we are basically self-serving and highly reactive creatures. I agree that good behavior and limiting agressive reactions must start with each individual. It might help in reducing the isolation of pschologically fragile or disturbed individuals. It would definitely improve everyday life.