IN 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic “assault” weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked.
“Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence,” said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. “It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities.” Scott Harshbarger, the state’s Democratic attorney general, agreed: “This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods.” One of the state’s leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. “The new gun law,” he predicted, “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.”
Comments
Very good column, Jeff. To those who ascribe to the belief that more government regulations solve all problems, Your concise data on gun control prove them completely wrong. To the left wingthere're is simply no other solution, and when it fails, they find someone else to blame.
facts are facts. thanks
Our gun laws have prevented many deaths. Jacoby sees the truth, twists it into lies.
Kate: You actually have no proof of your statement, only conjecture. Jacoby has not twisted anything into lies. If you pay attention to his article, it is pretty much pure reporting of what has happened. He did not make any statements about "if we had less stringent gun laws.." He did not speculate, as you did above.
Please do not start tossing in suicide and accidental deaths, this article was about gun crime, not other issues.
I would agree that by trampling on folks constitutional rights to own guns, limiting the numbers, no doubt decreased the numbers of accidental and suicide deaths.
Interesting stats, there coul be somehting here, but I wish there was a little more analysis here. For example, is there is anything to say that if the gun laws had not been enacted, the rate in Mass would not have been even higher? What happened to accidental/overall gun deaths or injuries? Masss is hardly a monolothic society; I think it would be reasonable to expect that rates would have gone up in some geograpical areas/social strata, even if only by chance, but does that tell us somehting. For either the left or the right to jump to conclusions with knee-jetk reaction just does not seem particularly helpful to anyone, unless the only onjective is chest-thumping
This is a very fair response. I think Jacoby has jumped to a conclusion with a limited set of data.
The facts are the facts though. I think his point was that the data he presented flatly contradicted those who assumed the new gun law in 1998 would bring down gun-related violent crimes.
Facts are indeed facts.
Jacoby has just told us that more than a decade after installing some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, Massachusetts residents are still kept safer than most of the country by a murder rate that's not quite just half of the national average.
Jacoby goes on to inadvertently argue that if all other states would follow Massachusetts' lead, the availability of guns would continue to fall since the import rate from other states would decrease.
I sometimes wonder if Jacoby's Sunday modern conservative drivel would be better placed in the paper next to the crossword puzzle. There's always a flaw in his logic, and there's amusement to be had for intelligent readers to work that flaw out for themselves.
Hey There 'Muggs' ;
Not sure we read the same article - Mr Jacoby did cite a decrease in number of Gun Licenses after the legislation was passed but offered no arguments about Guns or ownership itself and , in my reading, no information to support your extrapolation of the argument.
What the article did offer was that the Decrease in Crime that was used to justify the legislation Did Not Occur, in fact Crime Increased over the period.... If you wish to extend the arguement - it would sound like "Fewer licensed gun owners is associated with More Crime" I wont say result in because neither of us has data to show causal relationship.
If you wish to better inform yourself about what does in fact happen in neighboring states, etc - Please read the most comprehensive research on the topic "More Guns - Less Crime" (ISBN-10: 0226493660)
Not enough guns is not what's causing the gun death number. It's a gang problem, and they're using guns to knock each other off. Giving the benefit of the doubt Jacoby would like to do something about the gun death problem in this country, I don't see anything here to help solve the problem, only condoning paralysis.
Fair enough but why didn't / isn't government doing something about the real problem other than taking away the ability of law abiding citizens to better defend themselves from the disparity of force that arises when the multiple members of a gang invade the home of one or a few people?
Whether you are for or against guns or gun control the Massachusetts and Federal noise on gun control is deafening all of us to the lack of attention to the real, hard to solve problems of our society that cannot be addresses with a knee-jerk reaction, a single piece of legislation or even more government spending. Also notice that those who quietyly most want more gun control are those that don't want to face a gun while commiting a crime. Stats from other nations bear this out but that isn't my point here. My point is that we need leadership that sets a better example, reasonable labeling on violent influences along with guideance for parents (why protect free speech to the point of teaching our kids to enjoy being first person shooters in video games while throwing the right to bear arms out the window?), and an economy that employs more people and leaves fewer people desperate for other people's money and property. We also need to admit the war on drugs has failed and we need a different approach. Drugs and gangs are tightly linked and cause even more gun violence daily than the mentally challenged that have gotten so much press since Sandy Hook.
This comment has been removed.
A nice use of meaningless numbers that support an argument that no one is making. Here in Florida we have more murders in a few months than Mass has in a year. Since the passing of the "self-defense" law in Florida killings under this law has risen 250%. An investigation into concealed weapons permits shows that, " Florida issued concealed handgun permits to more than 1,400 people who plead guilty or no
contest to felonies; 216 people with outstanding warrants, including for murder; 28 people with active domestic violence restraining orders against them; and 6 registered sex offender."
Murders per 100,000 in Florida are much higher than in Mass. although Florida has very little gun registration regulations and those that it does have are loosely enforced.
Does this prove that loose gun laws lead to more killings? No, it doesn't it proves very little.
Neither does Mr. Jacoby's numbers prove anything. When analyzing the number of murders in any given location with any given weapon there is much more to assess than pure numbers. Everything from the level of "drug" activity in an area, to changes in demographics, to population density.
We cannot have a rational discussion regarding gun legislation if it is to be based upon bs numbers, which is all Mr. Jacoby has shown here. Great for those who are absolutists on the issue meaningless to those of us who want to look for rational legislation that protects lawful gun ownership while searching for a means to reduce some of the horrors we have seen. No legislation will be perfect, but that does not mean no legislation is necessary.
Turk, actually it does mean no legislation relative to gun ownership is required.
As many people keep asking: Why is this a gun problem? (remember, we are talking about the use of guns in crime here, not Sandy Hook events) Isn't this a law enforcement/criminal justice problem?
I will use a worn out example. The right to free speech and shouting "FIRE!" in a theater. Many state that our freedom to do that is limited by regulation and therefore so too should our right to own gun be regulated. But in reality, we all still have the ability to shout "FIRE!" in a theater, injurying or killing people in the process. If we regulated that right as is proposed with guns, we would tape everyone's mouth shut before entering the theater.
In other words, we do not fight crime in this country by passing laws that violate other people's rights.
Keep in mind, Jacoby's article was NOT about Sandy Hook, it was about gun crimes in Mass. You spilled over into "some of the horrors we have seen".
I couldn't agree more strongly with attatork. Statistics are best understood in a context, and there is little meaningful context here. One of the things I thought of as I read the article was "what happened within the first few years after the law was enacted?" To draw wide-sweeping conclusions from limited data over a long period of time fails to take into account many significant indicators. Just look at the economy. Folks like Jeff have been saying that Obama has taken us down the road to ruin, yet the economy is clearly turning around. I'm beginning the think that the specific "theories" of turning around the economy have less to do than a sort of natural normalization process where that which was bad becomes less bad, and that which was good can't last forever. It's human nature to find a scapegoat, and making it harder to get guns seems to be reducing the sort of accidental deaths and suicide attempts that are linked to readily available weapons. I'm not sure gin activists have much in the way of stitistics to refute that.
Good article. The second amendment was never about hunting or target shooting.Take the cops of the construction detsails and put them in our schools.
You do know that there was an armed guard in the school at the time of the Columbine massacre, don't you?
Mugg: And you know that guard was tasked with wandering the halls playing "hall monitor". Columbine did NOT have an effective security plan in place, it was all loosey goosey.
According to the CDC Massachusetts still had the second-lowest rate of gun related fatalities in the nation. Imagine where would be if controls were looser. But actually Mr. Jacoby proves the point here. Since gun control laws don't work we can conclude that Americans clearly can't play responsibly with their toys. The logical extrapolation then is that we need to take away the guns -- that following England's lead would clearly be the most effective way in mitigating gun violence. By arguing against more reform Mr. Jacoby you just proved the point of your opponent. The immutable law of unintended consequence triumphs again.
Nice dodge, Bumpy, you moved from gun crimes, to gun related fatalities. Of course we are going to have lower fatalities when the Nanny state takes things away.
How about Nanny Mass takes away all the cars? Then we can have the lowest vehicle fatality rate in the nation.
So much for your "logic". Pure blather.
Nice try History, but you're out of you're depth here. Equating my assertion to taking away cars is specious. Obviously you don't have any understanding of logic considering you illogical argument.
And then there are all the suicides that having more guns would encourage.
Yes - just about half of all firearm deaths are accidents or suicides. But we should make it easier for there to be an abundance of guns for all?
Having a gun "encourages" suicide? That is a new one. You would be hard pressed to find a psychologist that would agree having a gun "encourages" someone to committ suicide. Guns really do not talk to their owners.
But this is not an article about suicide, is it? This is an article about GUN CRIME.
Among the statistics quoted here, perhaps I am just missing one that seems of crucial relevance: what fraction of gun crimes in Massachusetts are committed with guns purchased or carried in from surrounding states?
As the most populous and urban state in the northern New England, I'd still expect the vast majority of guns involved in crime here to be purchased (or stolen) in MA. If it doesn't happen this way, I would severely question Mr. Jacoby's reasoning.
And the argument that legislators didn't put the prospect of guns from other states front and center during legislative discussion seems purely poppycock: they're not legislating for VT, NH, ME, RI, NY, and CT. You have to start somewhere and it's not places that you don't write the laws for.
Recent article in the Globe revealed that Mass has the 3rd highest rate of out-of-state guns found at crimes scenes in the nation. Just proof that federal laws are needed.
Jacoby doesn't seem to read the Boston Globe, either. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/04/gun-crimes-increase-massachusetts-despite-tough-gun-laws/HLXk8k1G0TiyNFJxmilzqL/story.html
The comparison to the national murder rate is meaningless. Many other factors go into why the gun murder rate is higher or lower including population density, urban vs. rural etc. rather than arbitrary state borders.
I never bother reading the comics in the Sunday Globe. I just read Jacoby's silly right wing drivel. His moronic columns are always good for a few laughs.
Comments like this are why the uninformed remain. . . uninformed, or to put it another way, ignorant.
Well Bob, that added a lot to the conversation, didn't it.
The point being...we should do nothing about guns? In any event, restricting access to guns is almost always correlated with reduced gun violence. Where does Jacoby come up with this stuff, and why does the Globe continue to publish his ideologically reflexive nonsense?
The highest rate of gun violence is found where gun laws are most restrictive as in Chicago.
"Almost always"? It is quite the opposite. Even in the UK, where guns are banned, gun violence by criminals has risen dramatically. "Ideologically reflexive nonsense" seems to be projection on your part as the facts on gun restrictions are easy to obtain.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Scott, you riled 'em up for sure! They have been very happy touting their "lowest murder rate in the country, that is why the rest of the US should follow OUR lead" drivel for quite a while. That statistic was the antigunners "nuke".
It appears many of the commenters skimmed your article. Ones who read it realize that your point is: statistics don't mean anything in this discussion. All some of them saw was that it did not agree with their viewpoint that there needs to be more legislation, thus revealing their extreme narrow mindedness.
Some are so narrow minded they accuse you of "twisting" the facts somehow.
One of our legislators, Paul Heroux, from Attleboro (dem) has an interesting viewpoint about gun statistics. None of them being quoted are the result of any real studies. He is right, along with several of the other commenters here, all we are seeing is numbers that are effected by many other factors.
But, let the antigunners rant on!
Deaths by firearms in New Hampshire occur at twice the rate in Massachusetts; in Maine, the rate is triple.
New Hampshire and Maine, unlike Massachusetts, do not require a permit or license to buy a gun, although weapons bought at federally licensed gun shops are subjected to a background check.
Both quotations from: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/04/gun-crimes-increase-massachusetts-despite-tough-gun-laws/HLXk8k1G0TiyNFJxmilzqL/story.html
Imagine if in the far more densly-populated Bay State, we had the same failure to regulate deadly weapons?
Jacoby presents no alternative to gun control, just the vague hope that maybe it doesn't really work. He is taking the same ridiculous stance as Wayne LaPierre: if the law doesn't solve the probelm entirely, then we should do nothing. Of course, if that were true, there'd be no point to any laws at all.
"death by firearms". Title of Article: "Crime Soared..." Then Kate tells us that the rates in NH and ME are double and triple respectively.
Here are some real numbers to digest. These are from the FBI Uniform crime reports.
NH murder by firearm: 6 Population: 1.3M
ME murder by firearm: 12 Population: 1.3M
MA murder by firearm: 122 Population: 6.5M
Mass has 5X the population of NH or ME. So, if MA were doing as good as NH or ME, our MURDER RATE should be either 30 or at worst, 60. But no, it is 122.
Kate does a typical antigunner shuffle sidestep misdirection. The article is about gun crime, not overall death rates due to gun ownership.
NH and ME are both huge hunting states with a large portion of the populations owning guns. They will obviously have more accidental shootings due to the higher percentage of gun ownership.
That was not the point of Jacoby's article.
This type of argument is why statistics need to be examined very carefully.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
Check your facts, "History." Don't make stuff up: the right to own designated types of firearms in Mexico is guaranteed by law. There are restrictions (being underage, a convicted felon, etc.), but most law abiding adut citizens may purchase a firearm for personal protection.
You check YOUR facts, "designated types of firearms"...and an almost impossible to obtain license, just like the antigunnners would like to have happen here.
"History" Your argument is simply this, "Laws don't prevent any particular action, they just make it illegal." Following that argument we shouldn't have DUI laws or any laws for that matter. It is not the purpose of legislation to disarm the public any more than DUI legislation is meant to get people to not drink. The purpsoe of legislation is to regualte, to minimize, to gain some control over a particular situation. Legislation is not meant to solve the problem in its entirety it is meant to hopefully gain some control over the distribution of arms. If that is simply to regulate or control who gets them as best as we possibly can. It is not foolproof nor perfect but it is also not some denial of one's second amend. rights. I can purchase a gun. I can carry here in Floirda. I simply must pass a background check. Big deal.
Have to agree with your DUI example, it does not stop anyone from drinking and driving, it is exactly like my FIRE example. It does penalize those who operate UI. No problem. But notice, there is no DUI law that states "You may only have a 4 oz glass of beer at the bar every hour".
"History" I'm a smoker. I can't smoke in restaurants or bars up in my old state. Is my right to smoke taken away? No, it is however regulated. Do I like it. Not particularly. But I get it. Do I think it is fair. No, but one life isn't fair and two, I'm biased because I'm a smoker. I'm also a gun owner and recognize my own biases but also recognize the necissity for legislation. That is pretty much my position. I support the second but I'm not married to an absolutist position regarding it.
The United States has the highest gun ownership rates in the world and the second highest rate of gun deaths among industrialized nations. Massachusetts gun deaths per 100,000, 3.1, gun ownership, 12.8%. Louisiana gun deaths per 100,000, 18, gun ownership, 45.6%. Do the math.
Do the Math on gun laws in Chicago vs their gun violence. Throw in Washington DC to boot.
This is an article about GUN CRIME, not gun deaths. But your comment goes to "Nanny State" thinking.
Of course, you cherry picked the state of Louisiana for added effect, as any good nanny stater would do.
But, doing the math as you suggest, since a lot more people do own gun in LA, one would expect that there would be more gun deaths, just like there are more traffic deaths in states where there are more cars, duh.
The only first world countries with gun ownership that even approach ours are Switzerland and Canada, both of which have far lower rates of gun violence than the US. Both Switzerland and Canada regulate guns much more tightly than the US does. That's less likely to be a coincidence than the cherry picked statistics that Jacoby uses.
Jacoby did not "cherry pick" his statistics, as did you.
Canada has not seen any appreciable change in it's trends since enacting the knee jerk laws. Switzerland has always been very different culturally from us. Talk about cherry picking, you flat shook the tree.
Culturally? Oh, I get it..euphemisms today? Do enlighten us.
Please stop with the car death analogies. Anaologies are hell to begin with, but the fact that MA generally has the lowest auto fatality rate in the nation makes this one even more spurious.
No, the point is that if you eliminate all cars, you will have no car deaths. It is not "spurious".
By the way, we are all more likely to be killed in automobile accidents than by gunfire.
Yes, and if we eliminate all fluids, we'll have no drowning.
Mr. Jacoby's argument does not probe the nubers enough to assume the conclusion he is making. The fact that gun deaths still went up in MA does not tell us what the effect of the gun law was, since we don't know what it would have been without the changes in law. The big enchilada for this issue, as far as I can see is this: if more guns do not create more gun deaths, or might even save lives, then how do you rationalize that countries such as Great Britain, France, and Japan, who watch the same movies, play the same video games, have just as much mental illness, drug use, and on and on and on, have very little gun violence? How do you even approach that question without examining the number of guns in each society?
You sound like Piers Morgan...please think more broadly before regurgitating his lies.
This is just meaningless gun nut blather. It is a matter of how easy it is to get a gun in other states that is missing from this so-called "analysis". What we need is nation-wide gun control. I snicker at how easily the pawns of the NRA do the bidding of the gun manufacturers...Jacoby is at the top of the list.
The point of the article was the meaningless blather from the antigun nuts. The anti gun nutters enacted laws without any true analysis. Now you announce that what we need is nation wide gun control, without analysis. Snicker all you want, but the way it really works is that the NRA does the bidding of the gun owners who manufacture what gun owners want. Ever hear of the theory of supply and demand? Without buyers there would be no market.
Oh, in case you did not notice, the best gun salesmen of all time is not the NRA, it is Barrack Hussein Obama. Since his reelection, he has sold over 5 million guns. He has had some help though, Mario Cuomo, Feinstein and Linsky.
messed up a sentence there, manufacturers in turn produce what gun owners want. Sorry about that.
Well, I've got guests from out of town so I'll just say two things. First, Attaturk vs. Historyisjustthat...Attaturk wins. Second, after all is said and done, History wants an armed citizenry so that, in case the democratic process doesn't go his way, he and his friends can accomplish their goals with military grade hardware and the level of violence that allows. It's not about burglars. It's not about hunting. It's about a new breed of Lee Harvy Oswalds and it is disgusting. OR, he's just a shill for gunmanufacturers. Disgusting either way.
mature response. go back to your guests.
Huh! Sanity check here please!
The poor, poor gun owners. I lay awake at night worrying about their rights.
Nice try, Jeff. I know you are smarter than this, but I guess you have your point to make. So be it. But your point is built upon a faulty premise, and you know it.
It's the guns purchased out of state in places with pathetic gun laws that are responsible for a great deal of the gun violence in this country. I know it. You know it. Everybody knows it.
Of course, the NRA and the GOP crush any kind of real research on gun violence.
The article was about GUN CRIME. I know, you folks like to redefine issues so you can argue issues your own way.
Gun Violence = any injuries that are suffered as a result of a gun.
"History" Some of us resent being called anti-gun. I'm far from anti-gun as you know I own them but I'm also not a pro-gun nut. Should others classify you a pro-murder nutter or pro-gun nutter. The fact is there is room for reasonable debate on this issue and I know you are smart enough to know it.
Interesting that you "resent" being called anti gun. Gun owners are routinely called "gun nuts", "obsessive", "crazy". They are also blamed for school shootings, gun crimes, suicides, and accidental shootings. They are told they are the pawns of the NRA and gun manufacturers.
For some reason, people like you think there should be a "debate" about this "issue". The fact is, there is no "issue" to be "debated". The "issue" is contrived by the anti gun nuts. The issue is and always has been evil. Murder existed before guns, and it will continue to occur after guns are banned. The anti gun nuts claim that there will be less, and that is a worthy goal. However, they ignore the fact that the future victims were denied a means to defend themselves.
Who are the anti gun nuts to deny anyone the right to defend themselves against fists, clubs and knives? I will not give up my right to self defense to any of their crazy ideas of making this a "safer" world by passing more laws.
The anti gun nuts in NY have gone after pistols, rifles and shotguns. Anything that can hold more than 7 rounds. They have been successful passing those laws. If another mass shooting occurs in which a gun that holds less than that is used, would you like to wager that Cuomo will press to confiscate even more guns?
Linsky is another anti gun nut. His proposed legislation does nothing to protect anyone, it's sole purpose is to reduce the number of lawfully owned guns in this state. What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand? He understands all of it, he just does not care. He is out to make a name for himself, that is all.
You can believe all you want that regulation will stop here. I don't. As I have said before, I would not debate nor negotiate with a cannibal as to what is for dinner.
Mr. Jacoby, your logic escapes me - since there are so many other factors that affect crime rate, what is your contention about the effect of the gun law. Are you arguing that without the tough gun laws, Massachusetts' crime rate would be LOWER than it is now? The same? Could it be that it would be even higher? Your column today is just empty rhetoric.
Jacoby relies on the intellectually shallow argument "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) to claim the ineffectiveness of the Massachusetts gun control law. Instead, sir, how about doing some serious research as to the underlying cause of the rise in gun-related fatalities?
And I feel better knowing that, even with the rise in gun crime in Massachusetts, I am safer here than in states like Florida with little or no gun control and way more deaths from guns. I am sure Trayvon Martin would agree with me, if only he were still alive.
Jacoby is still here, after he was outed as being listed on the right-wing, secretly industry-funded Mackinac Center's website as a writer of theirs? Mackinac scrubbed him the next day...after I brought it up to the Globe management. He references (biased and incorrect) data from that particular front group frequently, and received a "journalism" award (monetary) from them. The Mackinac Center has close ties to ALEC and the NRA, as well as the Koch brothers and all the usual insanely wealthy family foundations that are busy spewing endlesss drivel to fool the American public. I'm sorry, but this propaganda, disinformation, and shilling posing as "opinion" is completely unacceptable.
Must not have been all that big of a secret, huh? LOL.
I think his opinion is completely acceptable, on the other hand, I could care less what you think, so there you have it! Freedom of speech at its finest. Donchya just hate that, after you try to silence someone and there they are, still writing?
Writers must only get information and take "talking points" from the DNC.
Forward, comrade, forward!
If anyone really cares to see just how distorted (and inflammatory) Jeff Jacoby's article truly is, Google Massachusetts Law Enforcement Agency Uniform Crime Reports 1980-2005 (actually it covers the 50 years between 1960 and 2010). Check out the Index of crimes (per 100,000 residents) and you will see that in 1997 the index stood at 644 and has declined to 466 in 2010. True murders have increased from 1.9 to 3.2 per 100,000 during the same period, but we still live in a very safe, well-policed state. Crime is down on the whole.
So, there's no need to panic, folks. At that site, also click on the title and find out how your own city or town is doing. Most are very, very safe. This isn't Texas or Mississippi.
Also, Google Massachusetts Deaths in 2009 (The state report on causes of death) and go to page 43 and beyond for a look at homicide and suicide rates and the role played by guns and other methods. White readers should note that the homicide rate for both white males and females is 0.9 per 100,000! Those figures compare favorably to Japan's and Western Europe's numbers and mostly happen due to domestic disputes (Get angry, pick up the gun and fire!).
The real scandal in our state (and nation) is the rate of homicide among young black males (over 25/100,00) and 12.7 for Hispanic males. Those numbers are over 25 times (for black men) and nearly 13 times as great for Hispanic males than for for white males or females. Many homicides do not involve guns, but 108 of the 180 homicides (60%) reported in 2009 did happen by shooting.
Responsible columnists should not be spending their time working up the Globe's largely white readership. We're safe folks. But what should we doing to prevent homicides in neighborhoods of color? How can we make those places safe so a choir boy can walk to church and not be shot?
The Globe should investigate Jeff Jacoby's manipulation of statistics...but then, again, he's a Republican conservative!
So, regulating of firearms is really a civil rights violation afterall? It would primarily be targeted at preventing people of color from obtaining weapons? Is that why MA has written into its laws that Police Chiefs may determine whether a person is "suitable" to receive a license?
Evidently the white people in MA are afraid of arming the non whites. How interesting.
I take offense to references to "illegal" firearms. The correct term is undocumented firearms.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Jeff,
Would you like to offer up a theory as to why gun crime has increased so much? You spent your entire column quoting lots of statistics, but without putting forward a theory to fit them. You think gun crime went up as a result of this law? Ok, what's the mechanism?
"History" All I can say is I am disappointed in your inability to see a rational debate here. You say there is no issue. But because you say it does not make it so. You see the thing is the majority of us, at least according to all the polls I have seen, do think it is an issue. Therefore you can join the debate or give up your chair at the table.
You just keep missing the point that this country has NEVER run on what the majority want or think. Indeed, you make the statement that I should "give up my chair at the table". This is the politics of "tyranny of majority". The Bill of Rights was written specifically to prevent the tyranny you would like to see occur.
Please stop writing using data. Write an opinion piece using your viewpoint as a reference. The data table you present does not represent the facts you portray or even correlate to your opinion. Your slant is disingenuously obvious.
The 2nd amendment shouldn't supercede a kid's right not to get shot in the face.
Nor should a kid's getting shot in the face negate a person's right to self defense. You don't want children getting shot, start working on getting criminals off the street and securing schools better. You guard your money, but are not willing to guard your children. Even politicians are smarter than that, at least they send their kids to schools with security.
The 2nd Amendment is 2nd, only behind the right to freedom of expression - perhaps the most basic our Natural Rights - The ones endowed to us by our creator. When written, the Bill of Rights were thought by some to be all encompassing and sufficient - to stand as a unit in preventing the usurpation of each individual's 'Natural Rights' by power hungry government.
The strategy of Divide & Conquer is among the oldest because it works - so don't think of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as 'Their' or someone else's right - it is Our Right and Together, the BoR will stand but Divided it is only a matter of time until they and 'We' fall.
post hoc, propter hoc Jacoby ... the Globe could save a bit of money by replacing Jacoby's illogical, poorly-written screeds and replacing them with random knuckle-dragger rantings from the internet. The Globe should be ashamed of printing this NRA treacle.
As Disreali said, "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." Jeffy once again proves that even the worst of lies can be "proven" by the clever manipulation of statistics.
You are confusing association with causation. An alternate interpretation of your data is that gun control should be nationalized rather than dismantled. By the way, if you were in Watertown last night would you have gone out of your house to take on the two crazy Chechens? I think not.