Science of gun control? A study published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is on it (pretty amazing in itself):
According to Awr Hawkins at Breitbart,
” A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.Here is a table from the study:
Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.
For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.
Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."
And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.
The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.
The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."
In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.”
Table 1: European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates
(rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order)
Nation Murder Rate Rate of Gun Ownership
Russia 20.54 [2002] 4,000
Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] c. 0
Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000
Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000
Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000
Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500
France 1.65 [2003] 30,000
Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000
Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000
Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000
Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000
Norway 0.81 [2001] 36,000
Austria 0.80 [2002] 17,000
The Leftist claim that guns are the responsible party for murders, is wrong.
Also in an AP news article by By Josh Lederman is Obama, who can’t get gun control out of Congress, so he makes his own laws:
”WASHINGTON (AP) — Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.There is little question that gun control is seen to be a win/win for the Left: they hate guns despite any demurrals to the contrary. And they really despise the flyovers and bitter clingers who have guns and like to shoot them. Further, pitchforks and torches don't apply any more, so they now have an abject fear of guns and those who might be seen as threatening their creeping dictatorship.
Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of the cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's point-man on gun control after the Newtown tragedy thrust guns into the national spotlight, unveiled the new actions Thursday at the White House.
"It's simple, it's straightforward, it's common sense," Biden said in the Roosevelt Room.
One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.”
There is also little question that the Left is ideologically "science oriented" only when it is in regards to evolution; they will not approve of this published finding which has actual evidence as science. The probability is that they will produce manufactured "data" of their own which they will publish in the MSM to combat this information. Where there is no Truth, there are no lies (only tactics).
And don't forget: Obama is the contented killer of American citizens, who were assassinated without a trial (along with innocent collateral damage: just folks). He is also an obvious liar about domestic spying and shipping ARs and AKs to Mexican drug lords - some of which were "reimported" and used in domestic murders; and his government minions attack his political enemies for him; he is all set up "to rule" as he put it in '08.
27 comments:
"proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations."
Does this apply to the government? No? Ah, well that makes sense, after all, the King's men need to be armed, the peasants don't.
Where there are more guns there is more homicide.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Right, because excerpts from outdated studies countermine recently published data.
By that reasoning, gun ranges, gun shows, and the Whitehouse should be veritable bloodbaths.
Let reasoning be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.
FactCheck.org gives a fairly reasonable look at the statistics, which are correlates and not causal, for reasons which are clearly stated. The correlation between increased gun availability and decreased crime and murder (except for assault) is really unquestionable. The causal factor is legitimately unknown, but there is no legitimate argument claiming that "more guns create more murders, or more crime". There are millions more guns every year, yet the stats on crime and murder are going down - even including murder by gangstas with illegal guns, in gun prohibited environments.
It seems that both sides of the issue can produce data to support their biases. The correlation, however, supports only one side: more guns and less gun murder. For whatever reason.
Right, even though it's not simple nor obvious, FactCheck.org tends to agree more with the idea that less guns = less crime.
look, You agree that there is less crime, right, so look at the graph for the question Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?
So the questions seems to be more about the proportion of people with or without guns, not the absolute number of guns in circulation. there are more and more people in the country too you know
Stan,
The preceding comment was not left by me, I have no idea how my name was associated with that comment. Either Blogger did something odd, or the commentator did, in either case, it wasn't me.
The comment was accurate though. How do you interpret the data to come up with a different conclusion?
Russell,
If it is not you, then your identity has been hijacked.
Actually, I'm flattered that the person using my name has chosen to do so. After all, his ideas are so indefensible the only way to give them any sort of palatiblity is by using my identity.
Now, don't try to downplay this, whoever you are, I know you'll want to be modest and claim you only faked posting using my name was for a lark or some such, but really, it does take at least some degree of intelligence to realize spoofing my ID would, at the very least, give a veneer of respectability that your name would have lacked. We should celebrate that, if nothing else.
So don't be bashful now, dazzle us all with your brilliant arguments made under my name. I have high hopes that you can!
Here's an argument:
- Stan said: stats on crime and murder are going down - even including murder by gangstas with illegal guns, in gun prohibited environments
- FactCheck.org show a graph for the question "Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?", which went down from 50% down to 35% over roughly 30 years.
- Conclusion... less people with guns correlates with less crime (even though there are more guns).
Hence the difference in point of views stems from what we are talking about: people with guns or number of guns overall. The 2 statistics show a different reality.
Therefore, we can re-write Stan's summary as:
It seems that both sides of the issue can produce data to support their biases. The correlation, however, supports only one side: less 'people with guns' and less crime. For whatever reason.
Hey there, eternal, got bored of using my name?
"FactCheck.org show a graph for the question "Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?", which went down from 50% down to 35% over roughly 30 years."
The unstated premise is that people are willingly telling the truth on the poll.
This premise is easily countered by talking to gun shop owners, checking the number of first time purchases and first time CCW permits. The numbers and the testimonies are all indicating a constant increase of first time purchasers.
In short, one must ignore all other sources of evidence and testimony and only accept the single poll from FactCheck.org in order for the argument to carry through.
It's your prerogative to do so, but don't be surprised if other people dismiss such arguments as being highly biased and only faintly in touch with reality.
eternal,
That is not the case.
It depends on who you wish to quote. Gallup has numbers back as the early ‘70s which show no significant change; PEW and VPC show a decline. Blame for the decrease partially goes to the rise in Hispanics who own guns less, and the rise in single mother households, as well as the end of the draft. Continuing urbanization and the fact that young people have less interest in shooting also contribute.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
Regardless, there is an increase in the number of guns during the decrease in violent crime. Given that there is an increase in the population from the ‘70s until now, it might seem that it is probable that more people own guns now than they did back then.
1970 population: 208,000,000
1970 % gun in home: 49%
1970 gun owners, total: 101,900,000
2013 population: 317,000,000
2012 % gun in home: 32%
2012 gun owners total: 101,440,000
The homes with guns is actually the same. However, since I personally declined to answer certain questions (under penalty of law) on the last US Census, I suspect that there would be significant numbers of gun owners who would not admit it to someone on the phone claiming to be taking a poll.
Even so, the number of homes with guns is a constant from 1973 to 2012; the number of guns in the USA has increased significantly; violent crime has decreased significantly. (or has it really?)
The homicide rate declined sharply from 9.3 homicides per
100,000 in 1992 to 4.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2010. BUT:
The homicide rate is nearly identical to the 1965 homicide rate, and is less than half the 1990 homicide rate.
1970 homicides: 17,000
1990 homicides: 25,000
2010 homicides: 15,000
The homicide rate does not follow the homes-with-guns rates, because the homicide rate peaked in the late 70s through 1990, and decreased rapidly after 1990, according to BJS, using FBI stats.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Attempting to correlate gun numbers with homicides is futile.
Quote:
"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson
There is the "three percent" concept: during the American Revolution only 3% of the population fought the British at any given time.
So the 32% gun ownership would naturally look pretty good to Thomas Jefferson, one would think.
Stan #1:
The correlation between increased gun availability and decreased crime and murder (except for assault) is really unquestionable.
Stan #2:
Attempting to correlate gun numbers with homicides is futile.
You're confusing Stan... the only way these 2 statements are both correct is if homicides are not correlated but everything else is?
@Russell
I did not read anything interesting from you yet so I don't care about who you are or who uses your name...
eternal,
You are correct; the first statement should read:
"The correlation between increased gun numbers and decreased crime and murder (except for assault) for only the years 1990 to 2013 is really unquestionable."
The second statement should read:
"When considering the extended range of years from 1970 to 2013, it is seen that attempting to correlate gun numbers with homicides is futile."
I hope that clears it up for you.
@eternal
LOL! If you didn't use my name I apologize for saying you did.
I'm pleased, though, that you've so ably provided me yet another data point for my theory that the leftists operate from a solidly egocentric viewpoint. Thank you.
Good luck with your hopes and dreams! I've put you in my prayers.
Fair enough, you essentially concede that you used faulty statistics (the total number of guns, not % of owner) to support your point that more guns is 'ok'. Fair enough. But in general, you think that the case for "less guns is better" is not supported since the evidence is inconclusive; it could go either way. Therefore, gun ownership statistics, over time, are not a good indicator of violence.
What about looking at other points of data then? If you look at countries with similar socio-economic context, you will see a trend: less gun ownership means less violence... What's wrong with that deduction?
I was responding to the troll "faith" above, who said,
"Where there are more guns there is more homicide."
First it is not true. Second, it tries to remove responsibility from people and place the responsibility on the hated object: the gun.
And the study mentioned in the article above does exactly what you suggest. So go ahead and argue against that.
Let's go directly to very strict gun laws:
"So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have
firearms and very few murders involve them.
Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murderrates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R"
Now I imagine that you will object to the use of former Soviet block countries as eqivalent to the USA. So we need to look at europe, right? And that is exactly what the table in the post - lifted directly from the study - covers.
Let's take two very similar neighboring countries: Luxembourg and France.
Luxembourg has roughly no guns, and has a murder rate of 9.01/100k.
France has gun ownership at 30,000/100k, and a murder rate of 1.65/100k.
The same sort of statistic can be reached inside the US, comparing murder rates in blue cities with stringent gun restriction laws, vs. rural areas which have more lenient gun laws.
The Left cannot legislate utopia into existence, because of this thing called the "human condition". The AtheoLeftist experiment in the Soviet block has proven that.
A final note: the hundreds of millions of deaths in the combined communist experiment were murders-by-government, a far more fatal product of humanism than is the presence of a gun in a home.
First, let me specify that I am mostly neutral on the issue. If people want guns, let them get them, but at the same time, more guns necessarily means more gun violence and crimes, how could it otherwise!? I mean, at the extreme, a society with no guns would have no gun violence, and a society with guns for everyone, without background checks, would be more affected by it...
So what I am trying to understand is what the best legislation would be. Reading argument here, I am afraid that I cannot be convinced that better access to guns is better... you are correct, I reject your comparison with Russia, the socio-economic context is too different. Luxembourg and France? Come on, it's like comparing a city o a country, actually it literally is! And comparing cities and rural regions also fails because of their socio-economic context again and the population distribution; there might be more guns per person in Wyoming but I don't think they have gangs like NYC...
So what's the problem here? Why be so angry at proponents of gun control? It's not a cause I would go on the street for, but I never heard any pro regulation person wanting to outlaw guns completely either. The goal really is to make people safer. So why do you will think that limiting gun access is bad? Especially considering the fact that you clearly stated how gun violence is not strongly correlated with gun ownership?
More guns does not mean more violence. The data clearly shows that, whether you like the comparisons or not. Most comparisons of “no laws” vs. “heavy laws” shows that. You might declare every country, every venue incomparable to every other country and every other venue, but that is merely prejudicing data which is not congruent with your ideology.
Your statement concerning total confiscation producing no gun violence is incorrect: the gun violence is commonly visited by the state upon the unarmed populace in those cases. If you choose to ignore that, it is merely in pursuit of further prejudicing.
And your denigration of Luxembourg is noted; it is not a city, it is a state, as sovereign as any in the EU currently are. The culture of France and Luxembourg are similar.
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/luxembourg.html
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/france-country-profile.html
The data says what it says; however, the ideological bending of data is comically shown by two Harvard studies which directly contradict each other:
The first is merely a “literature study” which references other like-minded reports:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
The second Harvard report at least references data sources, and comes to the opposite conclusion:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
A quote from the law.harvard.edu report, page 660:
”One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not
spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly
throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies
shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost
uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐
ior.”37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐
abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not
the ones who rape,rob, or murder.38
By the same token, violent
crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As
the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39
individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns
despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40
Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐
national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the man‐
tra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less
death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons
should show that nations with higher gun ownership per cap‐
ita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun
ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or sui‐
cide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many
high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.
Consider, for example, the wide divergence in murder rates
among Continental European nations with widely divergent
gun ownership rates.”
(more below)
and from page 677:
” Particularly corrosive to the mantra [fewer guns = fewer murders] are the facts as to rural
African‐Americans gun ownership. Per capita, rural African‐
Americans are much more likely to own firearms than are ur‐
ban African‐Americans.94 Yet, despite their greater access to
guns, the firearm murder rate of young rural black males is a
small fraction of the firearm murder rate of young urban black
males.95
These facts are only anomalous in relation to the mantra that
more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death.
In contrast, these facts accord with the earlier point regarding
the aberrance of murderers. Whatevertheirrace, ordinary peo‐
ple simply do not murder. Thus preventing law‐abiding, re‐
sponsible African‐Americans from owning guns does nothing
at all to reduce murderers, because they are not the ones who
are doing the killing. The murderers are a small minority of
extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever
the level of gun ownership in the African American community.”
Your own observation that venues cannot be compared indicates the existence of a cultural differential rather than a direct contribution by any inanimate object. If the culture is broken (Detroit, DC, Chicago, Baltimore, Russia, etc. etc) the murder rate is higher than other areas, despite more rigid gun laws. If the culture is more responsible, such as in the rural areas, murder is less common, despite loose gun laws.
Blaming inanimate objects is a dodge to avoid the recognition that the Blue Model of governance is broken, seriously and fatally, and that the culture it has produced is a radicalized, feral, Lord of the Flies, survival of the gangsta, red-in-tooth-and-claw evolutionary product. Where there are no morals, well, morality is tautologically false.
The operation of a gun requires an agent, as do knives, ball bats, poisons, and all other objects. It was an ice pick that got Trotsky, right? No, it was the agent who wielded it.
Even if you sound like we disagree, I agree with all that, but why do you think that limiting gun access is bad?
(Not for law‐
abiding, responsible people)
Especially considering the fact that you clearly stated how gun violence is not strongly correlated with gun ownership?
You also missed the point of the thought experiment with no guns for all...
Gun ownership is already limited, legally. Limiting it has done nothing to stop the rise in violence which is now endemic to our cities. Every time I buy a gun from the local gun shop, the federal government in Washington DC has to give permission to the seller to let me purchase it.
The crime in Washington DC is orders of magnitude greater than the crime in my area, yet they dictate whether or not I can make a local purchase in my area.
It is the demise of federalism and the rise of the Blue Model that has left American cities in moral shambles; it is not gun ownership. Removing rights from law abiding citizens is called "positive rights" and "dictatorship". The Blue federal government feels that it has the power to remove Constitutional rights on its own authority, using "security" and "children" and all sorts of excuses. That is far more dangerous than gun ownership.
I was raised in that period of time when there were guns everywhere and when adults acted like adults. It was when part of the Greatest Generation allowed their children every indulgence and gave them no discipline that responsible behavior became more scarce... and that is the state of cities today: a legacy of irresponsible policy and irresponsible response has saturated the Blue Model. The self-indulgent "Me Generation" has destroyed once strong city structures.
So the banning of guns in Chicago has come about, and yet the carnage increases.
Here is the final quote from the second study I posted yesterday:
"I agree, the data could possibly be unreliable, because it is collected by surveys. However, if that is what we conclude then we can’t perform any statistical analysis since all gun ownership data is a survey.
I also think this discussion fully illustrates one specific point, that trying to form government policy based on macro statistics is wrong. In any such cost benefit analysis tries to balance people’s live against each other, and this is something is not possible. In practice, it leads to endlessly battling statistical studies, as our discussion illustrates.
The issue with guns is the threat of force. However, government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent.
But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable."
[emphasis added]
(more below)
The "thought experiment" can also be stated thus:
If there were no cars, there would be no car deaths.
If there were no access to lakes or rivers or oceans or bathtubs or buckets there would be no drownings.
If there were no drugs there would be no drug problems (that's a huge fail, same as alcohol prohibition).
A final data point, from the CDC:
"Dropping from among the 15 leading causes of death in 2010 was Assault (homicide), replaced by Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids as the 15th leading cause of death in 2010. The 15 leading causes of death in 2010 (Table B) were:
1. Diseases of heart
2. Malignant neoplasms
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4. Cerebrovascular diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus
8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis
9. Influenza and pneumonia
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11. Septicemia
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids".
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf [pg 4]
Even so, the annual death rate is declining (see the graph on pg 3), indicating that the average American can expect to live longer with every passing year... and not expect to be murdered, unless he ventures unarmed into Detroit's wasteland.
Even in places like Detroit, Chicago, DC, the problem is mostly an intra-racial one, with black youth disproportionately both at risk and responsible for using already illegal guns.
1) You have still not answered my question; why do you think that limiting gun access is bad?
(Not for law‐
abiding, responsible people)
Especially considering the fact that you clearly stated how gun violence is not strongly correlated with gun ownership?
2) Can you justify that: "rise in violence which is now endemic to our cities"?
3) Most of what you write is a rant on leftist/blue/liberal government style. Generalizations are never an efficient way of discussing issues. Why do you do that? Be assure, I don't associate myself with any politician or political party, I am just trying to figure out why you react so strongly regarding this issue...
4) I mentioned how I am neutral on this issue yet you mentioned that I have an "ideology"; what do you think this "ideology" is exactly?
5) The car analogy that you use does work; if there were no car, there would be no car accident. If there were no guns, there would be no gun violence. In both cases, we, as a society, decided to restrict the rules on who can use these tools and how they should be used. This does not answer my question shown in (1) and actually re-enforces it. We don't tolerate drunk drivers for instance; so would you be opposed to a law stating that drunk people should not be allowed to carry weapons? I think I would be in favor of such law...
Looks like trying to discuss with you and understand your position is futile. You preferred to reply to a troll who even wrote 'trolled' on another thread...
Sounds hypocrite to me but fair enough, have fun with the trolls!
I have already answered your questions; there are sufficient laws governing the possession and use of guns. Many of the laws directly violate the Second Amendment, and impact law abiding citizens, which is outside the purvue of your question.
For example, in order to carry a concealed weapon for whatever reason, including to legally provide personal protection, one must be "allowed" to do so by providing personal information, finger and palm prints, paying for and take a course, qualifying on a shooting range, and paying a high fee to the sheriff. Apparently the sheriff can take as long as he likes to approve CC, even after he has the cash.
This would generate riots if such limitations were placed on the constitutional right to vote. These are legal and monetary barriers to ownership, which constitute an "abridgement" of ownership under the law.
Open carry is legal, but doing it will produce hysteria amongst observers and a guaranteed delaying visit and questioning by cops, another barrier.
Purchasing a gun is impacted by a federal check. Felons who have paid their price to society still are punished at this point.
There is no need for more laws governing law abiding citizens. What is needed is severe punishment for the abuse of guns, under criminal laws which already exist. (prisons should be emptied of drug users, and violent offenders should receive very harsh punishment).
Taken to the limit, your approach could be this: if there were no people, then there would be no deaths. Problem solved.
The issue is not to eliminate all hazards for all people, it is to maximize freedom from tyranny being visited on law abiding citizens, while removing violent violators from society. That requires a balance, which the Left doesn't want. They want an enforced utopia of their own design, wherein all humans do the things Leftists think they should do, and therefore dictate the populace to do them. That is called "Social Justice", and it must be dictated because free humans don't want to do what elitists tell them to do.
The choice then is utopia under the dictatorship of the elite, or freedom in a non-utopian world where hazards exist and must be dealt with responsibly.
Gun "control" is front and center in this struggle. Free people must defend their freedom (Thos Jefferson).
Post a Comment