On “perverted” liars who are “knowing accessories to murder”

New Yorker columnist Adam Gopnik is a staunch gun control advocate who not only claims gun control will work, but blames those who disagree with him (gun owners and presumably all Americans who oppose gun control) for the shooting in Connecticut.

He accuses people like me of belonging to the “child-killing lobby,” and of being “knowing accessories to murder”:

After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)

The killers whom they defend? Can anyone name a single Second Amendment advocate who has defended any of the killers in question?

As to the conflation of gun owners and right-to-life zealotry, regular readers know that I have long taken issue with the idea that a fertilized egg is a human being. But if we consider that half of all fertilized eggs are aborted spontaneously, it makes little sense to say that gun owners “often” pretend outrage over what is usually a natural process.

More recently, Gopnick elaborated on his theme:

Gun control will eliminate gun massacres in America as surely as antibiotics eliminate bacterial infections. As I wrote last week, those who oppose it have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine.

Rather have gun massacres?

I don’t know anyone who would rather have “gun massacres” than give up their guns. That is a false dichotomy, as it assumes that this is the choice.

To illustrate the absurdity of his argument, imagine that someone made the same argument about drug deaths in a country without drug laws (such as the U.S. in 1914):

Drug laws will eliminate the drug problem in America as surely as antibiotics eliminate bacterial infections. As I wrote last week, those who oppose it have made a moral choice: that they would rather have drug overdoses of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in having drugs or seeing drugs bought—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine.

(The same false dichotomy could be made about alcohol, or even cars.) No one wants dead children, and that isn’t the choice. As I pointed out, I think many concealed carry permit holders would be willing to volunteer to offer security protection in schools. The possibility that someone will commit a dangerous or evil act always exists, but it is lessened when the good guys have guns, as happened in that Oregon incident that went unreported last week.

Gopnik claims repeatedly that guns in the hands of law-abiding people do not deter criminals.

…Hemenway is also the scientist who has shown that the inflated figure of guns used in self-defense every year, running even to a million or two million, is a pure fantasy, even though it’s still cited by pro-gun enthusiasts. Those hundreds of thousands intruders shot by gun owners left no records in emergency wards or morgues; indeed, left no evidentiary trace behind. This is because they did not exist.

Pure demagoguery. Most uses of guns in self defense do not involve shooting. There is no need to shoot, because the criminal runs away, and the police are never involved. Displaying a gun is the most that would be needed, but merely yelling, “I have a gun” is enough to scare away 99% of intruders. In fact, the mere placement of an NRA sticker on the front door of a house is a good deterrent without saying anything, as few criminals want to tangle with an armed homeowner. I would be willing to bet that there are far more incidents that were deterred by guns than could ever possibly be counted, because that sort of deterrence cannot possibly be known or measured. It’s like having a protection dog in your house. A former cop told me that in all his time as an officer he had never once investigated or heard of a burglary taking place in a house which had a dog.

I live in a neighborhood where there are regular burglaries, but Coco keeps me safe. No burglar in his right mind would ever break into this house with her here. She is on duty 24 hours a day, and in that respect she is better than a gun, because a gun does nothing by itself. I am almost certain that Coco has deterred would-be burglars, but how could that ever be known, much less counted? (And even though Coco is better in many respects than a gun, there is always the possibility of an intruder shooting her, in which case I would be in the direst possible need of a gun!)

I will say that anyone who does not believe guns deter criminals is an absolute fool, and I would love to know whether this Gopnick character has a sign on his front door proclaiming “GUN FREE HOME.”