Quote of the day—Johnathan Cohn and Nick Wing

Still more persuasive evidence on the effect of gun control comes from Australia, which — following a highly publicized mass killing in the 1990s — banned many types of weapons, introduced a more restrictive permit system, and then launched a buy-back program in which states paid gun owners for turning in weapons that the new laws made illegal. Homicide and suicide rates dropped substantially. And while the murder rates was also dropping before the laws took effect, researchers found that the decline was sharpest for the weapons declared illegal and in those states reporting the highest buyback rates.


Johnathan Cohn and Nick Wing
August 27, 2015
Gun Control Might Not Have Stopped The WDBJ Shooter. That’s Not The Point.
[No consideration whatsoever of the constitutionality of what they lust for. No consideration for the deception they promulgate. No consideration for the parallels to burning books they so vividly display. And no consideration that their facts are wrong.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Johnathan Cohn and Nick Wing

  1. From the official stats I was pointed to recently, the original claim is false: after the ban, violent crime rates went up substantially for years, then eventually started to decline and are now roughly where they were when the ban was put into place.

    Similar results can be found in Europe; the UN “Crime Victimization Study” shows this.

    • Yes. I forgot to point out that their facts are wrong as well. I was in a big hurry to leave and pick up Barb at the airport when I made this post.

      I have fixed that oversight.

  2. Let’s not forget the overall reason for the Second Amendment for us and the lack of it in Australia. Let’s hypothesize that the muslim percentage of the population and their apologists and supporters reach 51% and vote as a block to deny basic civil liberties to the 49% of the infidels there.

    If the courts fail to stop future abuses, what is their recourse?
    What is their fate? Disenfranchisement? Abuse? Dhimmitude? Genocide?

    If they try to reset the government to respect minorities will they have the means?
    Not if the anti-freedom, anti-gunners get their way.

    Only my enemy wants me disarmed!
    Never Again!
    Molon Labe!
    No! Your Move.

    • Just remember that Australia is an offshoot of the British empire. And that, along with much of the rest of the world, is a place where the term used to refer to the people is “subject”.
      That should tell you everything you need to know.

      • It’s worth noting it took decades of trying and lies about “rising gun crime” to get the first serious gun control in the UK (1920) and Aus (1925) passed. Even then the outcry over the infringement on the -Right-, (yes, in the UK it is (was) considered a Right, just trampled on) was loud from citizens and Ministers alike.

        Even now for them to turn back the clock is not undoing centuries of habit, just decades.

        • Part of what made is possible in England is that the right was “of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law”. Which translates to “only if you’re one of the Right People, and then only if we the government feel like letting you”.

Comments are closed.