【金句】Thomas Sowell - Why anyone would think that criminals who disobey other laws, including laws...

連結

• 來源1 - x.com/therabbithole8...

Why anyone would think that criminals who disobey other laws, including laws against murder, would obey gun control laws is a mystery.

任何人會認為違反包括禁殺人法在內的其他法律的罪犯會遵守槍枝管制法律，這個想法實在是令人不解。

額外內容

The 'Gun Control' Farce

www.creators.com/rea...

President Obama's intrusion into the mourning community of Roseburg, Oregon, in order to promote his political crusade for stronger gun control laws, is part of a pattern of his using various other sites of shooting rampages in the past to promote this long-standing crusade of the political left.

The zealotry of gun control advocates might make some sense if they had any serious evidence that more restrictive gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes. But they seldom even discuss the issue in terms of empirical evidence.

Saving lives is serious business. But claiming to be saving lives and refusing to deal with evidence is a farce. Nor is the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association the real issue, despite how much the media and the intelligentsia focus on them.

If there is hard evidence that stronger gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or reduce murders in particular, the Second Amendment can be repealed, as other Amendments have been repealed. Constitutional Amendments exist to serve the people. People do not exist to be sacrificed to Constitutional Amendments.

But if hard evidence shows that restrictions on gun ownership lead to more gun crimes, rather than less, then the National Rifle Association's opposition to those restrictions makes sense, independently of the Second Amendment.

Since this all boils down to a question of hard evidence about plain facts, it is difficult to understand how gun control laws should have become such a heated and long-lasting controversy.

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence, just within the United States, since gun control laws are different in 50 different states and these laws have been changed over time in many of these states. There are mountains of data on what happens under restrictive laws and what happens when restrictions are lifted.

Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.

The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.

Among the other facts that gun control zealots consistently ignore are data on how many lives are saved each year by a defensive use of guns. This seldom requires actually shooting. Just pointing a loaded gun at an assailant is usually enough to get him to back off, often in some haste.

There have been books and articles based on voluminous statistics, including statistics comparing gun laws and gun crime rates in different countries, such as "Guns and Violence" by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University. Seldom do these factual studies back up what the gun control zealots are saying.

Why would an ultimately factual question about the consequences of gun control laws divide people along ideological lines? Only if at least one set of people were more devoted to their vision than to the facts.

This shows up when gun control zealots are asked whether whatever new law they propose would have prevented the shooting rampage that they are using as a stage from which to propose a new clampdown on gun ownership. Almost always, the new law being proposed would not have made the slightest difference. That too is part of the farce. A deadly farce.

So is the automatic assertion that whoever engaged in a shooting rampage was a madman. Yet these supposedly crazy shooters are usually rational enough to choose some "gun-free zone" for their murderous attacks. They seem more rational than gun control zealots who keep creating more "gun-free zones."

Gun control zealots are almost always people who are lenient toward criminals, while they are determined to crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.

奧巴馬總統進入俄勒岡州羅斯堡的哀悼社區，以推動他加強槍支管制法律的政治十字軍，這是他利用過去各種其他槍擊案現場來推動這一長期以來左翼政治運動的一部分。

槍支管制倡導者的熱情如果有嚴肅的證據證明更嚴格的槍支管制法律確實減少槍支犯罪，那還有些道理。但他們很少甚至不以經驗證據的角度來討論這個問題。

拯救生命是一項嚴肅的事業。但聲稱要拯救生命卻拒絕考慮證據，那是鬧劇。第二修正案或全國步槍協會也不是真正的問題，儘管媒體和知識分子對它們非常關注。

如果有確鑿的證據證明更嚴格的槍支管制法律確實能減少一般槍支犯罪或特別減少謀殺案，那麼第二修正案可以廢除，就像其他修正案被廢除一樣。憲法修正案存在為了服務人民。人民並非為了被犧牲在憲法修正案之下而存在。

但如果確鑿的證據顯示對槍支所有權的限制導致更多槍支犯罪，而不是更少，那麼全國步槍協會對這些限制的反對，獨立於第二修正案，是有道理的。

由於這一切都歸結為關於簡單事實的確鑿證據問題，很難理解槍支管制法律為什麼會成為如此激烈和長期的爭議。

僅在美國國內就有著大量統計證據，因為每個州的槍支管制法律不同，許多州的法律隨時間發生了變化。有大量數據顯示在限制性法律下會發生什麼，以及當限制被取消時會發生什麼。

謀殺案的統計數據是最廣泛可用的數據之一，也是最準確的，因為沒有人會忽視一具屍體。在有這麼多來自如此多地方和時間的事實可供參考的情況下，為什麼槍支管制仍然是一個激烈的議題？簡短的答案是，大多數槍支管制熱心人甚至不以確鑿的事實來討論這個問題。

熱行者們行事好像他們某種程度上「知道」如果你允許普通人擁有槍支，子彈就會到處飛。這忽視了許多事實，例如在20世紀末的美國，槍支銷售增加了數百萬，而同時謀殺率卻在下降。

槍支管制熱心人一貫忽視的其他事實包括每年因自衛使用槍支而拯救的生命數量。這很少需要實際開槍。只需將裝有子彈的槍指向攻擊者，通常就足以讓他們退縮，而且常常是匆忙退縮。

基於大量統計數據的書籍和文章，包括比較不同國家槍支法律和槍支犯罪率的統計數據，如喬治·梅森大學的喬伊斯·李·馬爾科姆教授的《槍支與暴力》。這些基於事實的研究很少支持槍支管制熱心人說的話。

為什麼一個最終事實問題關於槍支管制法律的後果會沿意識形態線條將人們分裂開來？只有如果至少一組人更忠於他們的願景而不是事實。

這體現在當槍支管制熱心人被問及他們提出的任何新法律是否會防止他們利用的槍擊案時，幾乎總是，所提的新法律不會有任何影響。這也是鬧劇的一部分。一個致命的鬧劇。

自動斷言參與槍擊案的任何人都是瘋子，也是同樣的。然而，這些所謂的瘋狂射手通常在進行謀殺攻擊時，足夠理性地選擇一些「無槍區」。他們似乎比不斷創造更多「無槍區」的槍支管制熱心人更理性。

槍支管制熱心人幾乎總是對罪犯寬大，而他們決心對希望能夠自衛和保護家人的守法公民進行打擊。

The 'Gun Control' Farce: Part II

www.creators.com/rea...

The grand illusion of zealots for laws preventing ordinary, law-abiding people from having guns is that "gun control" laws actually control guns. In a country with many millions of guns, not all of them registered, this is a fantasy and a farce.

Guns do not vanish into thin air because there are gun control laws. Guns — whether legal or illegal — can last for centuries. Passing laws against guns may enable zealots to feel good about themselves, but at the cost of other people's lives.

Why anyone would think that criminals who disobey other laws, including laws against murder, would obey gun control laws is a mystery. A disarmed population makes crime a safer occupation and street violence a safer sport.

The "knockout game" of suddenly throwing a punch to the head of some unsuspecting passer-by would not be nearly so much fun for street hoodlums, if there was a serious risk that the passer-by was carrying a concealed firearm.

Being knocked out in a boxing ring means landing on the canvas. But being knocked out on a street usually means landing on concrete. Victims of the knockout game have ended up in the hospital or in the morgue.

If, instead, just a few of those who play this sick "game" ended up being shot, that would take a lot of the fun out of it for others who are tempted to play the same "game."

Even in places where law-abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, they are seldom allowed to carry concealed weapons — even though concealed weapons protect not only those who carry them, but also protect those who do not, for the hoodlums and criminals have no way of knowing in advance who is armed and who is not.

Another feature of gun control zealotry is that sweeping assumptions are made, and enacted into law, on the basis of sheer ignorance. People who know nothing about guns, and have never fired a shot in their lives, much less lived in high-crime areas, blithely say such things as, "Nobody needs a 30-shot magazine."

Really? If three criminals invaded your home, endangering the lives of you and your loved ones, are you such a sharpshooter that you could take them all out with a clip holding ten bullets? Or a clip with just seven bullets, which is the limit you would be allowed under gun laws in some places?

Do you think that someone who is prepared to use a 30-shot magazine for criminal purposes is going to be deterred by a gun control law? All the wonderful-sounding safeguards in such laws restrict the victims of criminals, rather than the criminals themselves. That is why such laws cost lives, instead of saving lives.

Are there dangers in a widespread availability of guns? Yes! And one innocent death is one too many. But what makes anyone think that there are no innocent lives lost by disarming law-abiding people while criminals remain armed?

If we are going to be serious, as distinguished from being political, we need to look at hard evidence, instead of charging ahead on the basis of rhetoric. Sweeping assumptions need to be checked against facts. But that is seldom what gun control zealots do.

Some gun control zealots may cherry-pick statistics comparing nations with and without strong gun control laws, but cherry-picking is very different from using statistics to actually test a belief.

Among the cherry-picked statistics is that England has stronger gun control laws than the United States and much lower murder rates. But Mexico, Brazil and Russia all have stronger gun control laws than the United States — and much higher murder rates.

A closer look at the history of gun laws in England tells a very different story than what you get from cherry-picked statistics. The murder rate in New York over the past two centuries has been some multiple of the murder rate in London — and, for most of that time, neither city had strong restrictions on the ownership of guns.

Beginning in 1911, New York had stronger restrictions on gun ownership than London had — and New York still had murder rates that were a multiple of murder rates in London. It was not the laws that made the difference in murder rates. It was the people. That is also true within the United States.

But are gun control zealots interested in truth or in political victory? Or perhaps just moral preening?

槍支管制熱心者的一個偉大幻覺是，防止普通守法公民擁有槍支的法律實際控制了槍支。在有數百萬把槍的國家，其中不是所有槍支都註冊了，這是一個幻想和鬧劇。

槍支不會因為有槍支管制法律而消失。槍支，無論合法還是非法，都可以存在幾個世紀。制定禁止槍支的法律可能會讓熱心人感到自豪，但代價是其他人的生命。

任何人會認為違反包括禁殺人法在內的其他法律的罪犯會遵守槍支管制法律，這個想法實在是令人不解。一個失去武裝的人口讓犯罪變得更安全，街頭暴力成為更安全的運動。

突然向無防備路人拳打的「一拳遊戲」對街頭小混混來說，如果有嚴重的風險，路人攜帶隱藏的槍支，就不會有那麼多樂趣。

在拳擊比賽中，被擊倒意味著倒在帆布上。但在街頭被擊倒通常意味著倒在混凝土上。一拳遊戲的受害者最終在醫院或停屍間。

如果，相反，只有一些玩這個病態「遊戲」的人被槍殺，這會讓其他被誘惑玩同樣「遊戲」的人失去很多樂趣。

即使在允許守法公民擁有槍支的地方，他們很少被允許攜帶隱藏武器——儘管隱藏武器不僅保護攜帶者，也保護不攜帶者，因為流氓和罪犯事先不知道誰有武裝，誰沒有。

槍支管制熱心者的另一個特點是，基於純粹的無知，做出了廣泛的假設，並將其寫入法律。一些對槍支一無所知，一生中從未開過槍的人，輕率地說出「沒有人需要30發彈匣」這樣的話。

真的嗎？如果三個罪犯入侵你的家，危及你和你親人的生命，你是如此神槍手，以至於你可以用裝有十發子彈的彈匣或僅限於七發子彈的彈匣（這是某些地方槍支法律允許的限額）將他們全部擊倒嗎？

你認為一個準備使用30發彈匣進行犯罪的人會被槍支管制法律阻止嗎？這些法律中聽起來很棒的保障措施限制了罪犯的受害者，而不是罪犯自己。這就是這些法律會奪走生命，而不是拯救生命的原因。

是否有廣泛提供槍支的危險？是的！而且一個無辜的死亡就是太多了。但什麼讓人以為沒有無辜的生命因解除武裝守法公民而失去，而罪犯卻保持武裝？

如果我們要認真對待，而不是政治性地對待這個問題，我們需要看看確鑿的證據，而不是基於修辭衝動行事。廣泛的假設需要與事實相符。但這很少是槍支管制熱心人所做的事情。

一些槍支管制熱心者可能會挑選比較有和沒有強槍支管制法律的國家的統計數據，但挑選是與使用統計數據來實際測試信仰是非常不同的。

被挑選的統計數據之一是，英格蘭的槍支管制法律比美國更嚴格，謀殺率也低得多。但墨西哥、巴西和俄羅斯的槍支管制法律比美國更嚴格——謀殺率卻高得多。

對英國槍支法律歷史的更深入研究，講述了一個與被挑選的統計數據完全不同的故事。過去兩個世紀，紐約的謀殺率是倫敦的幾倍——而且，在大多數時間裡，這兩個城市都沒有對擁有槍支強有力的限制。

從1911年開始，紐約對槍支所有權有比倫敦更嚴格的限制——紐約的謀殺率仍然是倫敦的幾倍。謀殺率的差異不是法律造成的。是人民造成的。這在美國內部也是如此。

但槍支管制熱心者對真相感興趣還是對政治勝利感興趣？或者只是道德自大？