Quote of the day—John Donohue

The best evidence to date suggests that right-to-carry laws increase gun violence, so efforts to eliminate or tighten those laws and to oppose their adoption in the states that do have them would be prudent at this time. A recent study noted that since May 2007, 29 concealed carry permit holders have gone on shooting sprees that killed at least three individuals. In general, legislative tightening of those allowed to possess guns to the fullest extent that the Constitution allows is clearly worth exploring.

John Donohue
Stanford Law Professor
December 31, 2015
Improved gun buyer background checks would impede some mass shootings, Stanford expert says
[“Gun violence” is a totally false metric and is immediate disqualification for taking this “expert” seriously. “Gun violence” includes self-defense shootings, and ignores any increase in non-gun violence as a result of people being unable to defend themselves. This “expert” clearly has an prejudiced and bigoted agenda against the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And he  does not even acknowledge the existence of such a right.

In eight years 29 of the millions of concealed carry permit holders have killed three people? How many people in that same time period with medical degrees, drivers licenses, and police badges kill? If Donohue’s claim is true then he just claimed we are extraordinarily safe people yet he presents it as if we are dangerous.

This is no different than someone discussing “black violence” and insisting government should enslave all people with black skin based on the number of crimes committed by such people and completely ignoring the 13th Amendment. Someone with Donohue’s attitude on fundamental human rights isn’t fit to clean the toilets at Stanford let alone represent them in public.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—John Donohue

  1. The highest degree of education doesn’t imply one having even a lick of sense…

    Jeff B.

    • One should never mistake educational credentials for intelligence: They are only weakly correlated. What those credentials actually correlate well to is a person who can set a long term goal and who can work towards achieving that goal. That doesn’t necessarily make them smart (hard sciences and math excepted), but it does make them persistent if they have a goal.

  2. Our universities have become cesspools of Progressive indoctrination. Is it time we start making lists of our own? I’ll put Stanford Law on mine.

  3. First off, he goes with the current meme that background checks can stop mass shootings. Ha, most of the recent ones were done by people who passed their back ground checks. They are useless and an infringement. I think before he gets to write another editorial, he should be background checked, have his content vetted by the government (and censored if necessary) and he should pay a fee for the ability to do so, and a 10 day waiting period before publication, etc. It’s not a burden, now is it Mr. John Donohue.

    Since 2007,there were supposedly 29 “shooting sprees” with only 3 dead. That is so low as to be pathetic. it actually proves the point that with millions upon millions of CCW holders that we are exceedingly safe and responsible.

    He argues that our violence rate cannot be compared to most third world hellholes because they have corrupt governments and poor legal systems and overlooks that they are usually gun free countries and yet criminals kill with impunity. That’s a big failure there on his part. He is a weak analyst.

    How about him scoffing at arms deterring tyranny? Liberals always want to say we have jets, tanks, and ICBMs, so citizens cannot fight back. This daft professor does not know that the conventional army will mostly not follow illegal orders and is not configured to conduct a war against the citizens.

    He is spouting off in such a lop-sided manner that his analysis can be ignored.

    • Of course, he could compare them to domestic 3rd-world hell-holes like Chicago, DC, New Orleans, Philly, etc, where gun control laws are high, but actually control of guns is pretty pathetic.

  4. I would be interested to know to what study he is referring. It doesn’t sound like anything I’ve heard of previously. My guess is that he is misrepresenting the study, or that the study’s methodology is flawed.

  5. Something doesn’t compute here. The LSM would have screeched to the high heavens if a CCW holder was involved in a “shooting spree”. Sort of like that mythical “evangelical Christian right wing mass murderer” they spout off about every time one of their fellow loony lefties goes postal… I’d like to see his documentation. Methinks he’s a liar.

  6. I’m wondering how much he lowered the average IQ of Stanford U. when he joined the faculty. Unless he represents the current norm there.
    I used to think that that campus was a gathering spot for very bright people. My opinion about that changed some years ago, though. And, it continues to lower.

  7. Remember that Law school is a craft school, sort of like learning to be a carpenter. There isn’t any science involved, so it is hardly surprising that the ravings of a law school faculty member would show no signs of any scientific understanding.
    Heinlein once did a nice essay about how to get a Ph.D. without doing any real work. In his example, I believe the subject involved was “Education”, but the same would apply to a fair number of other subjects. For starters, any subject whose name contains the words “science” or “studies”.

Comments are closed.