This is a discussion on Any intelligent responses to this recent LA Times article? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; My cousin who is very pro gun control posted this article under a pro arms article I posted. Foreign gun laws tightened after massacres have ...
My cousin who is very pro gun control posted this article under a pro arms article I posted.
Foreign gun laws tightened after massacres have reduced homicides - latimes.com
It potentially makes a good case for regulation but my stomach churns when I think about it.
In my mind it makes no sense to disarm the public. All the laws and regulations do is make it harder on the law abiding citizens and makes no difference to the criminal.
How is regulating guns going to stop crazy people from shooting up theaters and elementary schools? They picked these places because they were gun-free zones. In my mind it's better to arm the public but what do I know...
Has it really worked for these countries??
Any good resources in response to this?
I don't always have nothing to say, but when I do, I post it on Facebook.
Without doing a lot of research on the crime rates in those countries here are my initial thoughts.
-First, we would need to compare the change in overall violent crime over the same time period. A mugging at knife point is no better than a mugging at gunpoint.
-Regardless of those statistics, the article doesn't consider the cost in lives lost or destroyed due to the inability to defend yourself
-The article doesn't consider that many of those countries have restrictions to other rights that Americans see as basic rights (bill of rights), you could argue that this is because the government has a major monopoly on power because of disarmed citizens).
-The article doesn't address that those citizens may be fully subservient to their governments because they lack means of resistance, which historically can result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Two key points that the media has failed to acknowledge are the RIGHT to self defense (the fact that today you can choose to be armed/unarmed, while anti-gunners would take that choice away from you) and the concept that firearms are required to maintain a balance of power between the people and the government (through overthrowing tyrannical governments, a concept validated by a Supreme Court Justice in the Heller vs DC case)
These are just some potential starting points, and you would have to research each more carefully to put up a solid debate.
If someone gave me a copy of the LA Times, I'd either line the bird cage with it or wrap some fish in it.
That goes for the Wash Post. NY Times, etc.