Now there Are Four: Another Honest Liberal Debunks Gun Control

Now there Are Four: Another Honest Liberal Debunks Gun Control

8
4313
Photo: Kelly McCarthy

Over the years, I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find intellectuals on the left who are willing to risk opprobrium from their ideological peers by acknowledging that gun control doesn’t make sense.

  • In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
  • Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
  • Most recently, in 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate. Bouie addresses the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.

Now we have another addition to the list.

In a must-read column in the Washington Post, Leah Libresco admits that the research shows that gun control simply doesn’t work. She starts by openly confessing her bias.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

She then points out that she and other researchers did a thorough investigation of gun deaths and found that restrictions on gun ownership would not have saved lives.

…my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.

She looked at international data and the case for gun control evaporated.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

She also looked at some of the proposals advanced by U.S. advocates of gun control and discovered they don’t work.

…no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos. …silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

Sounds like Ms. Libresco has reached the same conclusion as firearms expert Larry Correia.

So what’s her bottom line? Well, Libresco still doesn’t like guns, but she’s intellectually honest about the fallacy of gun control.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.

Very well stated.

Let’s close with two infographics from Reddit‘s libertarian page. I can’t personally vouch for every factoid, but based on what I’ve previously shared (see hereherehere, and here), I would be quite surprised if this information isn’t accurate.

And here’s the second one.

P.S. If you want to laugh at the dishonest (or naive) liberals, watch this amusing video to see how they think gun control works in their fantasy world (and here’s a more somber video that makes the same point). And for unintentional humor, Trevor Noah’s naiveté is always funny.

Then give your leftist friends this IQ test on gun control and see if they can figure out the right answer.

  • John Decker

    I’d like to give a few observations. First, the business of mass murderers having psychotropic drugs in their blood. Mr Piazza has an impeccable reputation in the realm of firearms and self defense, and I am inclined to take his statements as facts. This country is awash in various drugs that cause mental and impulse control problems. Most people reading this probably have a relative or friend who uses such drugs. Second, since there as yet seems to be no other reason, is it possible this is a “false flag” operation run by Liberals for the purpose of doing away with the Second Amendment? We just had a prominent liberal lose an election, a liberal who, with her husband, has left a trail of suspicious dead bodies behind themselves for years. (Not proven, but certainly interesting as a conjecture). Third, the bodies were still warm when the Liberals started with the calls against “high capacity magazines”, “extra lethal assault weapons” and the usual litany of gun bans. In the Bill of Rights, only the Second Amendment is protected by one additional phrase. The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No other right is so protected. It seems the founding fathers thought this one more important than the others. And fourth, in the past few years, we have had I don’t know how many (two or three hundred?) people killed in mass shootings, and the Liberals scream every time about banning guns, magazines, “cop killer bullets”, and all manner of things. Yet, at the same time, Planned Parenthood indiscriminately murders thirty or forty thousand unborn children every year, which Liberals proclaim to be their “right”. I wonder if they were psychologically tested if that would bring a diagnosis of schizophrenia?

  • Jimmie Cooper Boswell

    well with all, the hate america and hate american groups in this nation. it is not difficult to tell from where these murderers and mass murderers are being taught. and one thing i am cenrtain of, is that murder is all about the taught attitude of individuals.

    whether if be the nfl, blm, antifa, isis,public schools, communist, or other fascist groups. but the latest vegas incident, seems to coincide with the national football league protests. and we know this guy was and avid gambler. suggesting strong evidence, between his gambeling and the nfl antiamerican terrorist group.

  • samw

    Sadly all four are likely to suffer for their conclusions, the corporations don’t want the truth they want lies

  • Mikial

    But you can rely on it that the rest of the Liberals won’t even consider this. They’ll just consider her out look as valid and will shun and hate her. That’s just how Liberals are.

  • jack

    well it’s about time these leftys got with it gun control will not stop gun deaths ! the bad guys will always have guns no matter what the gun control laws are

  • JohnGaltTexas

    You cannot reason with irrational, mentally defective, unhinged people.

  • disqus_rEWjgfyzIp

    Like the one utube video that had some folks out with some firearms laid on a table and ask folks which fire arms they thought should be banned. The 2 mini 14s that were on the table (one with wood stock and other in the fold able stock version) the people that had no clue picked the one with the folding stock to be ban able as it looked scary ( both can hold a magazine of 30 rounds). then they picked a 223 that was with black stock over the wood stock 308 because it was black and scary.

    its like this folks, the semi automatics are less dangerous then a good bolt action. The recoil from a semi auto tends to make the fire arm jump where the bolt action fires one round at a time which has less recoil. the other reason the left wants to go after the AR class firearm is they cant go after the hand guns that are used in more gun violence. Sure you get the gangs that prefer the AK47 and use them in drive bys or some criminals that use the AR class as they can adapt both easily by adjusting the one pin int the firing mechanism to make them full autos. Then you have an illegal fire arm in the hands of people that didnt pass a back ground check in the first place looking to use a fire arm as a weapon then.

    There are so many laws on the books about firearms yet they are NOT enforced and normally dropped for some other charge. Stop with the laws that wont be enforced and enforce whats on the books and increase the jail time for any fire arm of offense and things would work better. you want gun control teach people the right and wrongs of maintaining a fire arm and how to use them correctly.

  • Kevin Padfield

    Years ago a very anti-gun woman from a very anti-gun family moved in next door to me and we started talking about firearms for protection. She agreed to go out to the country to go shooting with me to see what it was like. She did very well for some who had never even touched a gun before and actually admitted that she liked it. She purchased two handguns for protection shortly thereafter and one of them was stolen in a burglary. A few days after that her sister phoned her to ask what was new. She told her that one of her handguns had been stolen. There was a very long pause on the phone and finally her sister said “I’m not going to tell mom, it might kill her”.