First, I know there a few threads about gun control, but I wanted to start this thread so you all could see these links... According to a study by Havard, gun control is counterproductive. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ In the link is the actual study you can look at via PDF. Then there is this study by the CDC which isn't exactly a gun lobbying group... http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm Next there is the study done by the American Journal for Preventive Medicine: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=209529 Finally I will leave you with this piece from Chicago Law Professor, Richard Epstein: http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/123236 Basically everything here shows that looser gun laws do not correlate to a rise in violent crime, but the opposite. There is a reason why Israel and Switzerland are among the least violent crime nations in the world. Because they require everyone to own a gun!
Those studies basically fail on the whole correlation =/= causation principle, however, Interesting stuff here, written by economist Richard Florida in the Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
Whodthunkit? The mangina is the first to reply! Lol Here is something you can look up and ponder... The last 20 years violent crime rates in the US have declined. While the gun control law have loosened. HMMMMMM.... Wrap your delusions around that. You can say that the studies fail to correlate the cause of violent crimes. The fact remains less gun control laws have led to a reduction in violent crime. Yes, the US is still pretty high on the list when it comes to nations with violent crimes. Anyway, what I find funny when talking to idiots like you is that you all think more gun control will curb violence and mass killings. It won't. You say your an attorney, so you aren't completely stupid. So I ask you this... Most people committing a violent crime does not want to be confronted with force or violence back at them. So when some dip**** wants to start shooting people, where are they likely going to do so; a police station full of gun toting cops or a school filled with no guns and a bunch of kids that can't protect themselves from such violence?
Federal laws have loosened, state? Not quite as much. In fact, in regions with more gun control, violence has gone down fastest, especially in California, while the South, i.e., the land of hillbillies and rednecks leads the nation by a long shot and hasn't declined as much as the rest of the country, probably because of the southern states' lax gun laws. We can pass laws and try to create a world where there is less violence, and so far, laws tend to push things in that direction.
Gun control is an invitation for the government to take further control of the very lives of its citizens.Raise your hands if you think that will end well.
Why are you defining violence so narrowly? You are speaking in general terms but providing data that is very specific. Assault deaths < violent crimes. Also assault deaths =/= gun deaths.
Dude, if a crazy or criminal wants to get a gun, even with a checkered background, they can. People intent on committing a violent crime of any kind will skirt the laws regardless. All more gun control laws will do is make it harder for law abiding people to equip themselves adequately to defend themselves.
So now one type of violence should take precedent over another? Any person that has an intent to commit a violent crime, be it a mass murder/suicide, rape, aggr assault, murder, etc will think twice when they know the person or people could be packing a gun as their chief protection.
No. Mid was contradicting reports on incidence of violent crime. He did so with a report on fatal assaults. Apples and Oranges.
This logic does NOT penetrate the cranium of the statist. They simply don't believe in the constitution, and laws of this country.
Midtowner, I read your link and don't agree with its entirity. Do me a favor and actually read the last link in the OP. It will be worth while.
Here midtowner, read this one too... http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr?pg=3#
I see a lot of high minded talk about defense from tyranny and criminals as a justification for owning one or more guns. However, I think Phillip Van Cleeve head of the Citizen's Defense League in Virginia exemplifies a different, perhaps more common rationale: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-rights-advocates-under-attack-after-school-shooting/2012/12/16/04cba1aa-47d6-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html I'm not saying it's wrong, but there is definitely a lot of this attitude out there in the gun community. He sounds like a guy talking about his badass new grill or something. In my world, this is how people talk about their new MacBook. Besides, I can't think of many reasons other than "fun" that a law abiding citizen would want or need a gun that fires six bullets per second. Honestly, I would prefer more gun advocates to be honest like this when confronted by people wanting to curtail their hobby. I get a little tired of hearing about how they need these guns for when the government becomes too tyrannical or we get invaded by China.
And this one as well. I know it will be hard for you to read this one, but do so, or scroll down to gun control...then read from there. http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=1260
It not any different than when bikers talk about their bikes or car collectors talk about their cars. At least in how that guy talked about his guns. Kev, have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever went out and shot at targets? Clay pigeons? Maybe you should try it. A lot of these guns are made just for fun. However I do agree some guns shouldn't be on the market. But....there it is...since they are, I would much rather them be in the hands of a sane law abiding person over a crazy mentally ill person or a hardened crinimal!
I earned an archery merit badge in the Boy Scouts, but I don't have much experience with guns. I shot a few of my dad's rifles living on a farm growing up. It's just not something that I ever pursued. I drive by H&H every day on the way to work and thought about trying it out. At this point, I would never have a gun in my house. I respect how dangerous they are and wouldn't want one until I felt qualified to handle and secure it. I agree with your points. I was struck by Van Cleeve's candor more than anything.
Last time I went to visit the U.S. Supreme Court, I had to pass through a metal detector in get into the building and then again to get into the court chamber. I wonder what Scalia and his posse think about this type of gun control.