“Nursing does not diminish the beauty of a woman's breasts; it enhances their charm by making them look lived in and happy.”
by Lazarus Long




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

quote of the day – caillin langmann

While this is not exactly what I have been saying for years, it does dovetail in nicely:

“No significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates were found,” reads the abstract on the study, written by Caillin Langmann, a resident in the division of emergency medicine at McMaster University, and himself a vocal foe of gun-control measures who has argued instead for enhanced social programs to combat the causes of gun violence.

To be published in an upcoming issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Interpersonal Violence, the study took Statistics Canada data on Canadian firearm homicides and compared them to three key pieces of Canadian firearms legislation.

The three pieces of legislation were the 1995 long-gun registry, a 1977 bill that imposed a requirement for criminal records checks and a 1991 bill that imposed mandatory safety training and a 28-day waiting period on firearms purchases.

(Emphasis added.)

Of course, in fairness, some folks have been saying exactly that for years.

By most major metrics available, "gun control" has proven to be an abject failure, both in America and abroad. Even by limiting the playing field to only self-serving, specific statistics (like "gun deaths"), "gun control" extremists still have a remarkably hard time demonstrating that their desired legislation results in anything better than a wash once you factor in the salutary benefits of having a lawfully-armed populace, and the problems that can arise from a lack of the same. And when you broaden your gaze to the elemental, individual rights at play, "gun control" becomes a titanic disaster.

It is also interesting to note that this study is being published in an official, middle-of-the-road, peer-reviewed journal – while the process has some serious flaws, it is also pretty much the only process available to us, and the anti-rights cultists have a frustrating (and logically fallacious) habit of ignoring anything if it was not reviewed, despite the fact that "not peer-reviewed" != "not accurate". Of course, "peer reviewed" does not necessarily equate to "accurate" either, but that is another story for another post…

As we have repeatedly touched on before, in the end, studies like this are completely meaningless, even when they support our case – our individual, Constitutionally-protected rights are not dependent upon the outcome of any law, study, sampling, or poll, nor can they be justly limited due to other people’s actions. However, this is yet another arrow in our quiver for when "gun control" extremists start bleating about how their laws will "help".

7 comments to quote of the day – caillin langmann

  • Beaumont

    Quoting studies such as this will certainly help convince those who have a relatively non-emotional attachment to anti-rights legislation. However, I don’t think that the rabid anti-rights partisans will be moved from their positions. They don’t like any facts that don’t support their preexisting beliefs; in actuality, they don’t even believe in any such thing as objective truth.

  • As always, our target demographic was, is, and will never be the folks I refer to as “anti-rights cultists” or “‘gun control’ extremists” – rather, we should aim our efforts at the fence-sitters, the people who do not have that emotional investment, and the rest of the American populace.

    “Gun control” supporters are in the minority, and their numbers are diminishing fast… things like this will only drive them farther into extinction because their intended converts will already be armed with information like this :).

  • AMB

    Could you provide a link to the quoted article? I’m curious to read the rest of it.

    Numbers may lie, but if you get enough of them together, eventually they get their story straight.

    Increasingly, that story is looking like it’s decidedly pro-firearm.

  • Sorry about that – link added.

    More specifically (or generally, depending on your point of view), the story is becoming increasingly pro-freedom.

    Of course, that is another angle for all these numbers – the more things like this are publicized and spread, the more anti-rights cultist look like blithering morons for denying the obvious reality. I can live with that.

  • AMB

    Thanks for the link. And indeed: pro-freedom is a great way to describe it.

    I also like your point that, as more people see the empirical value of freedom, the crazier and crazier its opponents will look to the general populace.

    Hopefully one day we’ll live in a world where being anti-freedom is considered just as insane as belonging to the Flat Earth Society.

    Thanks for all your hard work and great blogging. Please keep it up!

  • As Joe Huffman describes it, our goal should be to convince people to regard the Brady Campaign, VPC, CSGV, and all the rest of those whackadoodle organizations in the same way they look at the KKK.

    In the end, all of those organizations are analogous in that they are seeking to arbitrarily abridge law-abiding individuals’ Constitutionally-protected rights, so we are already most of the way there…

  • […] human being, I am exclusively concerned with what works, and history has shown us, time and time again, that “gun control” simply does not work – it does not achieve any of its stated goals, and […]