Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 25 at 10:04 a.m.
To SezMe;'No evidence' eh? You obviously don't care to look if you say that.
If you look at every mass-murder in the last 20 years, the vast majority have taken place in so-called 'gun free' zones.
Why not police stations, shooting ranges, or the NRA Annual Convention?
Because these killers may be psychotic, but they aren't usually stupid.
They go to where their victims are disarmed by law to maximize the body count and insure that they don't meet effective resistance.
Is there 'evidence' for this view? There is certainly anecdotal evidence from post-incident interviews with killers who survived.
Or just total up all the mass-murders in the last 20 years (since the 'gun free zone' was foisted on us), and see where they occurred.
There's also the evidence of common sense, something completely lacking in the gun control lobby.
If you exclude law abiding, armed citizens from an area, the only ones there with guns will be, by definition, criminals.
As for your other statements...
The scientific method doesn't ever allow you to prove anything is correct. You can only prove something is incorrect.
"Reduced crime rates are due to more legal license holders."
To disprove it we'd need to say that there were more license holders and crime rates still went up.
Nope, violent crime rates are at 40 year lows while the number of carry license holders is at an all time high.
We can't prove that the increase in legal license holders has 'caused' the decrease in crime rates.
We can however disprove the gun control industry contention that more firearms being carried causes more crime.
The crime and gun sales data for the last 20 years does that handily.
As for limiting what types of firearms a law abiding citizen can buy, how can this make sense?
By definition, a law abiding citizen isn't going to do anything 'bad' with whatever firearm they have.
By definition, a criminal will beg borrow or steal whatever weapon they want.
So limiting what good citizens can buy based on what criminals may want is at best counter-productive, and at worst repressive.
The bank robbery scenario is a canard. Bank robbery is a conscious violation of the law. A criminal act (emphasis on the 'act' part).
Gun control laws don't prosecute actions, they try to be preemptive.
Their premise is that anyone who has access to a certain type of firearm, or ammunition, or accessory will BECOME a criminal.
That is simply wrong. It's the underlying fallacy of the failed doctrine of gun control.
If it were true the evidence would be everywhere. Any AK-47 sold would create a new mass-murderer.
Does this happen. Of course not.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and say nah-nah-nah all you want.
Saying there is 'no evidence' doesn't mean that there is no evidence.
The proof is all around you. You simply need to open your eyes. And your mind.
On A Radical Gun-Control Proposal
Posted on August 23 at 5:48 a.m.
Actually, if you dial the sarcasm back a notch, this really is the solution.
No one would shoot up theaters if there was a chance that a large number of the movie-goers were armed. Same with daycare centers, temples and schools.
We've already seen the violent crime rate plummet due to people once again being able to carry a firearm for self-protection. We know that works.
As for limits on what types of firearms people can own, that makes no sense.
Law-abiding people will never be a problem, and criminals will never obey the laws on what they can and can't own (see your example of the felon with 47 firearms).
As for kids with firearms, it used to be pretty common for kids to have their own firearm, and in rural areas it still is. No big stretch there.
Looks like every suggestion you made here would be an improvement.
Good job, even if that wasn't your intent.