Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
Evert statistical study I have seen shows that right-to-carry does indeed lower crime. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but there is truth in the title of the book, More Guns=Less Violence
The myth is that right-to-carry will produce blood in the streets. However the experience in Virginia, and Florida run counter to that assumption.
Criminals will not obey the law anyway--guns are one of their tools=of=the=trade. and they will get them, and use them. Law-abiding gun owners are not a threat to other citizens.
Why is it that the places with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime? Hint--the high crime rate did not come first....
So again, I ask, of what purpose are gun laws?
|
The problem with that logic is that every criminal is initially a law-abiding citizen. For example, Cho purchased his guns legally, as did many other campus shooters.
As to Virginia and Florida, I'm not familiar with their experience. What exactly happened? Did all crime stats go down, or just some? Did any go up?
I've seen a study on the DC gun ban that was rather inconclusive, i.e. the gun ban didn't have a clear effect on crime stats. I think gun bans are most effective when the people don't already have guns. If you issue a gun ban in an already gun-infested area and you don't enforce it well, of course it won't have much effect. I'll admit that high gun ownership on its own isn't bad. But it is a problem when a good percentage of gun owners are crooks or have hostile intent. Look at what happened in Iraq right after our invasion. Guns suddenly everywhere, no more laws, high unemployment and anger = recipe for violence.