The PJTV site posted a wonderful video outlining the facts behind the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago Gun Ban.
I liked very much how he described the issue and its importance. But I wondered about a few things he said.
Do you think gun control people "offer up only emotional arguments?" I don't see it that way. In fact I think gun control arguments are often factual and statistical, like how many people are killed each year in murders and suicides with the aid of firearms. You could call that an emotional argument, but I think your reason for doing so is to denigrate your opponent. What's your opinion?
Mr. Hicks spent a few minutes on the old "criminals don't obey laws" routine. This has been completely debunked but pro-gun folks continue to use it. The idea is gun control laws are not aimed at the criminals they are aimed at the law-abiding. The results of proper laws properly enforced upon the law-abiding gun owners results in diminished access to guns by the criminals. It's simple really.
And finally, he said some folks say the 2nd Amendment right applies only to the police and the military. Is that true? I don't think I've heard that one yet.
What's your opinion? His citing of John Lott's study is quite compelling, except for the fact that there are other studies with the exact opposite findings. One thing I do agree with is the question of whether guns do more harm than good is at the heart of the matter.
Please leave a comment.