The good people at the online news site known at The Trace are out with an excellent new article today on the efficacy of sensible gun laws and the demonstrable benefit they provide in lowering crime and violence. Here’s the introduction to “Gun-Rights Advocates Claim Criminals Don’t Follow Gun Laws. Here’s the Research That Shows They’re Wrong. How the right kind of regulations deter criminals from getting guns”:

“Despite the fact that mass shootings are predominantly an American phenomenon, gun advocates are quick to insist that there is nothing we can do to prevent them. Instead, they suggest these murders could only be reduced by having more armed civilians — aka  “good guys with guns” — roaming the streets, a solution that inevitably involves fewer gun regulations and more gun ownership. Reducing gun violence through straightforward policies of the sort implemented in virtually every other industrialized nation is regarded as a chimera by the National Rifle Association. After all, criminals don’t follow laws, so what would be the point?

John R. Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime, recently evoked a version of this slogan in a piece for The Daily Caller, arguing that closing the loopholes in the background check system would not have stopped the Charleston mass shooting from happening. The alleged killer’s record included an admission of drug use that should have blocked the purchase when he bought his Glock from a licensed dealer, but an FBI examiner didn’t catch it in time and the sale was allowed to go through by default. Even if had been denied, Lott reasoned, “[i]t seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun.”

It turns out, however, that the scientific evidence suggests precisely the opposite: criminals routinely respond to incentives, and policies such as background checks and permit-to-purchase requirements demonstrably save lives by reducing criminal access to firearms. The problem, these studies show, isn’t that criminals don’t follow laws, but rather that criminals aren’t dissuaded by weak laws. And gun laws in all but a few states are decidedly weak.”

Click here to read the rest of this compelling explanation of why tougher gun laws make us all, on the whole, much safer.


Target assault weaponsAs yesterday’s panic at a shopping mall in Fayetteville makes clear, average Americans are rightfully terrified at the idea of people openly walking around carrying guns in public venues of this kind. They do no want it and it clearly needs to be unlawful throughout the United States. Moreover, a completely clear and permanent ban on such behavior would have no effect on “concealed carry” holders or hunters or the right of people generally to own guns.

Given this plain and simple reality, the least the NRA and other Second Amendment enthusiasts could do is to loudly and publicly support efforts to prohibit such behavior and the terror it understandably causes in the general public.

Come on, NRA. what do you say? How about helping to find one small island of common ground?


GunsIt appears that the North Carolina House will continue its return to the hard right policies of the Thom Tillis days this morning when the House Rules Committee, after numerous false starts, takes up the dangerous proposal to further eviscerate state gun safety laws. This is from the good people at North Carolinians Against Gun Violence:

“The Rules Committee will consider one of the most dangerous and controversial pieces of gun legislation in our state on Wednesday at 9am in 1228/1327 LB.

HB 562 eliminates North Carolina’s successful pistol permitting system, which provides background checks for the approximately 40 percent of gun sales that happen through private sellers.

Polls show 87 percent of North Carolinians support the current system, which keeps guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, and others. When they got rid of background checks on unlicensed sellers in Missouri, they saw their handgun homicide rate increase by 25%.

Other controversial provisions include:

  • limiting doctors’ ability to ask about guns in the home and prohibiting them from sharing information about gun possession with law enforcement;
  • instituting arduous requirements for those posting gun-free signs;
  • and allowing people who have been convicted of stalking to get a concealed carry permit after three years.”

For more information and/or to get involved in speaking up on this measure, visit:



GunsThe Greensboro News & Record tells it like it is this morning in a polite but firm editorial regarding the controversial House bill to further liberalize North Carolina gun laws. The editorial is entitled “Doctors and guns” and it rightfully labels the proposal to gag doctors who would ask their patients about firearms in their homes an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment:

“Health and safety are their business. A patient can exhibit signs indicating a risk for suicide or aggression without explicitly expressing a desire to harm himself or others. While the bill does not directly prohibit doctors from asking about a patient’s access to guns, it prevents them from informing police. Imagine a psychiatrist examining someone like Seung-Hui Cho, the 2007 Virginia Tech mass-murderer, finding him in a troubled state of mind, learning he has firearms, but being barred from telling police because of Cho’s right to ‘firearms privacy.’

Because of physicians’ free-speech rights, this measure should not survive a legal challenge. But it demonstrates how completely many state legislators have surrendered to the gun mania afflicting the country.”

The editorial concludes this way:

“The bill has other unsound provisions. It would:

• Weaken criminal background checks.

Read More


Last year nearly 18,000 people died in the world from terrorism. This was a record high.

That figure includes all deaths by explosives along with every other means terrorists use to commit violence. This statistic also includes the entire world population of 7 billion people. It tracks violence in war zones, failed states and other troubled places where no real government exists, let alone regulations.

From 2000-2010, about 335,000 Americans died from firearms.

That means that the worst ever year for terrorism, which includes all terrorist violence, throughout the entire globe of 7 billion people, cost a little more than half as many lives as guns cost during an average year in one country, which happens to be the richest country in the world and an ostensibly functioning democracy.

I wrote this a few weeks back about why things have to change in America. It doesn’t have to be this way.