The State Press has an item pointing out that gun control is a complex question, and with a video that clearly and simply disputes many of the gun ban lobby’s talking points.
Click on over, and be sure to watch the video. The Alley will be here when you click back.
Speaking for all of us here at teh Alley, the key question about gun control is simple enough. “Do restriive gun laws reduce cirme and make anyone safer?” The answer to that is very simple and can be expressed in two letters. No.
If restrictive gun laws do not make anyone safer, why should we impose a law certain to be a failure on ourselves? We should not.
Will gun owners turn their guns in? Not unless the government is prepared to do a house to house search for them, and that runs the risk of armed resistance.
The experience of New Jersey and Chicago indicate most Americans would hold on to their guns until all hope of a reversal of policy is gone, and then sell most of them to members of the criminal underworld to traffic in stolen and illicit guns. Which makes gun control a major part of the problem armed criminals pose.
In almost 522 years, more than 57,763 restrictive gun laws have been imposed, approximately 110 restrictive gun laws a year. Of those, not even one can be shown to have reduced crime or made anyone safer.
Within reason, a sufficiently restrictive gun law will prodce a 2000 per 100,000 murder rate, and a 10,000 per 100,000 violent crime rate.
On the other hand, sufficiently permissive gun laws, or none at all, will produce murder rates below 1 per 100,000 and violent crime rates below 50 per 100,000 population. And the results of existing gun laws, which date as far back as 1495, demonstrate that far beyond scientific certainty.
While there are many things we could and should do to reduce crime, starting with a crackdown on those trafficking stolent and illicit firearms, more restrictive gun laws are counterproductive.