Mike Royko, liberal Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist changed gun-control stance.

[SteveM]

Royko wrote for 3 Chicago newspapers, and once had an anti-gun outlook, sparing few opportunities to lambaste the NRA and gun-owners. That is, before he changed his mind. From a critique of F. Richard Ciccone's biography of the late journalist:

http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/Books/mike-royko-life-print/

"Ciccone at least twice mentions Royko’s courageous stand in favor of gun control, but never mentions his equally courageous turnabout. Royko’s slow realization that gun control was not helpful mirrored my own. In 1993 he wrote “Anti-gun leadership keeps firing blanks” and wrote about his ambivalence towards gun control. On the one hand, “the Congress of the United States has no guts; presidents have no guts; and most of our state legislatures have no guts” when it comes to enacting gun control. But on the other hand:

'Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws. The drugs flow and so does the supply of weapons. It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem.'

While a sea change, this was hardly a ringing endorsement for self-defense. That had to wait until 1996, when his “Women should gun for equality” looked at the utterly silly--and patronizing--arguments against women using firearms against rapists."

Nationally Syndicated Columnist Mike Royko writes (Washington Times):

"...If every woman in every big, high-crime community in America had a gun in her purse or strapped to her thigh, we would have a safer, more courteous society. ...At one time my left knee might have jerked. That was when I thought reasonable gun control laws would reduce violent crime. But I've noticed something that should be fairly obvious. With all the gun laws we have, the bad guys still have guns and use them to shoot the good guys.
... only a small percentage of violent crimes against women are committed by strangers. To a woman who awakens to see a stranger crawling through her window and heading toward her bed, he is not a small percentage. He is a 100 percent fiend. But if she had a pistol under her pillow and knew how to use it, she could make him a 100 percent corpse. And the world would be a far better place.
"...Imagine, if you will, that men were society's prime rape targets. Imagine a society in which a small and mild-mannered man could not get off a bus at night and walk down a dark city street toward his home without fearing that he would encounter a large hulk with a knife who would demand the privilege of engaging in what used to be called buggery."

"Well, I'll tell you what the result would be. Men would not ask for workshops and self-esteem counseling or wear rape whistles around their necks. They would demand the right to protect themselves, politicians would promptly respond, and it would soon be legal to pack mini-cannons in our belts..."

____________

Finding Royko's quotes was a quite a search, perhaps best explained by the criticism of Ciccone's omissions. Perhaps Royko had fallen from favor as a noted liberal commentator? Any-hoo, I had to pull it down from Pat Quigley's site.

http://www.paxtonquigley.com/in_the_press.html

[TheWraith]

1. A lot of people who start out anti-gun and take an in depth look at facts end up changing opinions.

Another case I can think of is Gary Kleck, the famous criminologist from FSU. (Also a lifelong Dem and ACLU member.) He's previously talked about how he went in to researching guns and violence expecting to prove that more guns equaled more violence, and that his own data proved his assumptions wrong.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

2. It is the only logical conclusion at which one can arrive.

The anti-gun position is one of faith. Every claim, every argument, every prediction has been proven wrong time and time again, yet they continue to believe it somehow works.

The anti-gun-control position is supported by history, facts, law and logic.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. "The anti-gun position is one of faith."

Nailed it.

[DanTex]

7. Yet scientists and scientifically-minded people tend to support gun control...

...while the religious right is firmly in the pro-gun camp.

[krispos42]

18. The right-wing...

..which includes the religious folks, also have this faith-based belief that they'll overthrow the government if it gets too oppressive or something. And by "oppressive" they mean preventing them from establishing a Christian theocracy.

[MicaelS]

22. Scientists and scientifically-minded people supported

Alcohol Prohibition before it was enacted. So did the Religious Right. Some went so far as to claim all the jails and prison could be converted to hospitals because crime would become non-existent. History shows the reverse happened. If you doubt this get the book "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" by Daniel Okrent. http://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Rise-Fall-Prohibition/dp/074327704X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314845454&sr=8-1

Scientists and scientifically-minded people, and the Religious Right, supported, and continue to support, Drug Prohibition and that has worked as well as Alcohol Prohibition, which is to say that Drug Prohibition has failed.

A German-American psychiatrist named Fredric Wertham, tried to get comic books banned in 1954. He published a book, Seduction of the Innocent, that claimed comic books "were a negative form of popular literature and a serious cause of juvenile delinquency." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_of_the_Innocent

Gun Prohibition won't work either. Just because educated people, and scientists and scientifically-minded people support some political issue sometimes has little bearing to do with the real-world implementation and effectiveness of that policy.

All instances of Prohibition I named above are all cases of Moral Panics that frequently sweep America. Prohibitionists claim something is evil and needs to be banned to "save the children" or "save society." Scientists and scientifically-minded people, and the Religious Right are often on the same sides wanting to ban something to achieve some theoretical better society that never arrives because of human nature.

So the fact that Scientists and scientifically-minded people support Gun Control, and the Religious Right opposes it means little to me, since both are so frequently on the side of Prohibition.

[SteveM]

31. Ken Burns' Prohibition will begin airing on PBS this month. nt

[Union Scribe]

24. I'm sure there's a cite coming

and I'm sure it'll say just what you claim, but for fun's sake why don't you post it?

[X_Digger]

25. Giant appeal to authority. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

28. Religious right is FAMOUS for prohibitionist programs that don't work.

Like the war on drugs
Like the war on alcohol
Like the war on gays
Like the war on sex

All of which have been shown to be foolish.

Why scientists would also adopt a similar prohibitionist stance on firearms is beyond me.

[SteveM]

32. Tobacco will be the next prohibition. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

30. Yes this is true...

but that doesn't change that it is a position of faith.

One can know there is no logical reason to believe yet still believe. Ask the Jesuits about that for example.

There are also many scientifically minded people who do not support gun control. In fact, I'd be willing to bet, far more do not than do.

If you have proof that the group you mentioned "tends" to support it, by all means, present it. Otherwise it is as unsustainable a claim as the one I've made - in other words, based on nothing but your personal beliefs.

[spin]

34. Much depends on how you define "support gun control" ...

Many gun owners support existing laws but oppose draconian gun laws as proposed by those who would love to greatly restrict or ban the ownership of firearms.

I have known engineers that worked on NASA programs such as the Space Station who were gun owners and didn't advocate oppressive gun control. I have also known a number of atheists who were gun owners and had concealed carry permits. I know religious people who would never own a gun.

Your assertion that "scientists and scientifically-minded people tend to support gun control...while the religious right is firmly in the pro-gun camp." sounds to me like you are trying to insinuate that truly smart people favor gun control while stupid religious people do not.

In my opinion, you come close to painting with a broad brush and you are verging on stereotyping. There are 80 million gun owners in this nation and they are a VERY diverse group. Let me assure you that many scientifically minded people own firearms and many enjoy shooting as a hobby. I've know several who found handloading extremely accurate ammunition a fascinating hobby.

To give you a feel of why reloading and handloading ammunition would appeal to a scientifically minded person such as an engineer, I suggest you read this article on handloading which covers the basics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading I'll post a short excerpt.

Load tuning

Tuning load to gun can also yield great increases in accuracy, especially for standard, non-accurized rifles. Different rifles, even of the same make and model, will often react differently to the same ammunition. The handloader is afforded a wider selection of bullet weights than can readily be found in commercially loaded ammunition, and there are many different powders that can be used for any given cartridge. Trying a range of bullets and a variety of powders will determine what combination of bullet and powder gives the most consistent velocities and accuracies. Careful adjustment of the amount of powder can give the velocity that best fits the natural harmonics of the barrel (see accurize and internal ballistics). For ultimate accuracy and performance, the handloader also has the option of using a wildcat cartridge; wildcats are the result of shaping the cartridge and chamber themselves to a specific end, and the results push the envelope of velocity, energy, and accuracy. Most, but not all, reloads perform best when the powder selected fills 95% or more of the case (by volume).

Another interesting article covers benchrest shooting.

Benchrest shooting

Benchrest shooting is a sport in which very accurate and precise rifles are shot at paper targets from a rest or bench from a sitting position. Benchrest shooters are notoriously detail-oriented and constantly trying to further the accuracy potential of the rifle through experimentation. Nearly all benchrest rifles are custom made, and many shooters do their own gunsmithing.<1> Nearly all shooters handload their ammunition in order to tune it to their rifle.<2>


A Jay Young built unlimited class "railgun" using a 2 inch (51 mm) diameter Lilja Precision barrel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchrest_shooting

[applegrove]

3. The people with the most gun laws would be the places that are desperate

to stop gun crime to begin with.

[Endangered Specie]

5. and of course the gun laws utterly fail to do that

[one-eyed fat man]

8. How about snake oil ?

Whenever any gun control law is enacted as the "cure" for "gun crime" and it fails, why is there yet another gun control law proposed?

How many times are you going to buy that snake oil?

How many times will gun control fail to deliver the promised decrease in crime before you question the premise?

The problem is not that there are too many guns, it is that there are too many criminals.

If the crime rate was half of what it is now, would you still demand MORE gun control?

Which do you really fear, the criminal or the gun?

[Hoyt]

6. He's right gun laws have been about as effective as drug laws-- why, because gunners are addicted to

the friggin things. They can't see life without them. Until gunners and the majority who don't need them recognize that addiction, nothing is going to work. At least by legalizing, or decriminalizing drugs, we might improve society. Liberalizing gun laws . . . . . .that's another story entirely.

[DonP]

9. Sorry bout that

We've been liberalizing gun laws for almost a decade now and even in the depth of a recession crime continues to drop. I know some folks here are hoping in a truly sick way for that trend to reverse, but it doesn't show any signs of changing.

There's nothing new, revealing, insightful or even vaguely intelligent about your pedestrian stance on guns and gun control . It's the same old tired hackneyed bumper sticker level ideas again and again, all some of you have added is a "just wait and see" element. It's old hat to all of us in sport shooting and we recognize it for the hypocrisy it is.

5 - 8 years ago you were all predicting blood in the streets with CCW. It didn't happen and no state shows any signs of repealing it, in fact most states are loosening their laws on it. In 2004 you were all predicting that the lapse of the AWB would result in gangs shooting up cities with the previously banned rifles. Didn't happen.

In fact none of the things the gun control lobby has predicted have come to pass to the point where even the media has heard them cry wolf so many times they stopped picking up most of their press releases. And every year that goes by without "blood running in the streets" makes more and more people think that CCW is not the sky falling.

Violent crime is still down at 30+ year lows and gun control supporters are still all talk and no action legislatively and judicially. If whining had any political weight you'd be really effective. But gun owners are more active than ever politically and organizationally.

When some of you actually start taking out your checkbooks, or in your case your allowance, and organize nationwide and show some actual political muscle you might start to be a threat again.

Till then you remain a punch line for us and certainly not anyone qualified to judge what is or isn't best "for society".

[Hoyt]

10. Crime rate hasn't been dropping because of more guns. Might even drop further with less guns.

Of course, many of the current gun addicts would probably steal to get more.

[rl6214]

15. "Might even drop further with less guns."

Might, but of course you have absolutely nothing to base this on.

"Of course, many of the current gun addicts would probably steal to get more."

And of course this statement is just a blatant bald faced lie. Is this what the anti-gun zealots would do? Probably.

[provis99]

11. Crime is at a 30 year low in Canada, too, and they've been tightening their laws.

So your lack of logic doesn't impress me.

[petronius]

12. So what, then, would you say is the most logical interpretation of those conflicting patterns?

[gejohnston]

19. Lack of logic?

How so? Yours sounds like a case of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/090721/dq090721a-eng.htm
That last change to their gun laws were in 1995, the greatest drop was almost ten years after that. Our drop parallels state and local laws being repealed or liberalized. Then there are super strict gun laws in countries like Jamaica and South Africa, which make us look like Japan and UK (the latter has more machine gun crime)
Then there is Russia, which has few gun crimes but still has a murder rate five times ours.

[provis99]

20. so there's no relation between gun laws and crime, is what you're getting at.

which was my point!

[DonP]

21. Yeah right...

I'm sure most Americans lie awake at night wondering "what would the Canadians do?" ... So big shot, how much have you contributed to gun control causes this year? What have you done besides whine on internet boards?

All BS and no action from another typical gun control peanut gallery member. You guys should at least get funny hats to wear so you can spot each other, cowering on the street for fear of law abiding gun owners "totin two with special loads".

All you have to go on for gun control support is a lot of whining and your poorly thought out theories based on a decade plus old smoke and mirrors study or two and a failed top down organization.

We have yet to see or hear of any of you actually doing a single thing to actually put your money where your mouth is. No grass roots organizations, no checks to Brady, no petitions for repeals of CCW or the 2nd amendment, nothing but talk to make yourself feel like a big deal.

In the meantime, gun owners keep paying NRA dues, joining state rifle organizations and local gun clubs and spending our disposable income on our sport.

You guys are all lip and no substance.

Now, get in line behind Hoyt for your funny gun control club hat. One size fits all.

[Hoyt]

26. More Americans should be asking "what would Canada do" in a lot of respects.

"Cowering in the street" -- you mean like you guys strapping on a gun or two before going out. Then coming home and cleaning and playing with your cache before getting in bed with a few by your side.

Carrying guns in public is not sport. If you want to keep em locked up until you get to the range, that's OK with me. But, you probably can't handle that.

[DonP]

27. I live in Illinois - your gun free paradise

As usual, you're wrong again. I can't carry anything, anywhere unless you are a crooked politician, the only kind we have here. But we're working on fixing that.

But the good news is the Ambassador bridge is still open and, if you can pass through several concealed carry states without soiling yourself, you can be in gun controlled Canada in a few hours. Please, feel free to avail yourself of this golden opportunity to leave the brutal neanderthal gun owners behind.

[spin]

35. Your posts are beginning to gradually sound more and more ridiculous ...

It's entertaining to watch how your argument has lost touch with reality.

I don't know any people with a carry permit who "strapping on a gun or two before going out." I'm sure a few of us carry a backup weapon, but only a few. We might, if we were as afraid as you suggest.

Now if I lived in fear as you suggest, I surely would never carry a five shot snub nosed revolver like my S&W Model 642. I carry such a weapon because it is very light and I simply drop it and its pocket holster into my pants pocket as I leave the house. I have no reason to believe that I will need to use this firearm when I leave the house. Unfortunately, there is an extremely slight chance that I might find myself in a situation in which there is a legitimate reason to use it for self defense. There is a somewhat higher chance of my finding myself in a situation where I might have to use my weapon than there is a chance of my winning the lotto. I buy one ticket for every lotto drawing as you can't win without a ticket. I also believe that the first rule of using a firearm for self defense is to have one.

When I come home, I don't clean and play with my carry gun any of my firearms. Once or twice a year, I will run a lightly oiled patch down the barrels of my firearms and wipe then down with a silicone cloth and put them back in the safe. I do field strip and clean my firearms after a trip to the range.

I never sleep with a gun close enough to me that I can just wake up and grab it. If you had even a little understanding of gun safety, you would realize that is a very foolish idea. You can wake up during a nightmare and grab your firearm and shoot at something you see moving in your bedroom. It could be your wife or your toe.

But please keep on posting your fantasies. They are entertaining and laughable.

[SteveM]

33. Please re-read and you will see your misconstruction...

"We've been liberalizing gun laws for almost a decade now and even in the depth of a recession crime continues to drop."

The poster merely pointed out that the liberalization of gun laws was not associated with an increase in crime. His logic is actually sound observation.

[rl6214]

13. "the majority who don't need them"

Why is it "the majority who don't need them " keep electing representatives that keep voting down gun control laws? I'll tell you why, it's because the MAJORITY dosen't want the gun control laws. Our representatives are elected to vote our desires and wishes. That's the same reason the NRA has millions of active members and the Brady bunch don't have any.

You are the minority.

[Hoyt]

14. No, the majority hasn't been exposed to today's modern gun obsessed. They need to understand the

folks in their community who are arming up for several reasons, all bad.

[rl6214]

16. You didn't (or won't) answer my question

Why is it "the majority who don't need them " keep electing representatives that keep voting down gun control laws?

It is the anti-gun zealots like you that the majority HAS been exposed to and has soundly rejected.

Answer my question, if you can.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

17. Well, some states and cities with tough gun laws have lower rates of violent crime

And some states with lax gun laws have higher rates of violent crime.


You simply can't ignore all of the other social issues that face red and blue states, urban and rural areas, and solely say that guns and gun laws are the causes and solutions of all social ills.

Legalizing pot would immediately lower the gun-crime rate, for example, whereas some new gun-control laws with effective enforcement would maybe lower the gun-crime rate over the course of several decades.

[DWC]

29. Logic and an Open Mind = Viable Opinion n/t