In the polarizing debate about gun control, one does not often encounter a moderate voice of reason. I find this editorial from the The Kingsport (TN) Times-News to be a rare example of such.
I can easily see why he would consider this article "a moderate voice of reason."
According to liberals, the huge increase in gun purchases that came as a consequence of Obama’s election were certain to result in a commensurate spike in gun violence. Despite these repeated predictions, the frenzy of gun violence that was supposed to erupt never occurred. In fact, gun violence has decreased.
Indeed, the liberal mantra that more guns equals more crime has run headlong into some inconvenient facts.
My response to this argument has been that it's still early days. But I admit it is compelling. I'm not sure if John Lott invented it but his name comes to mind.
What's your opinion? Is the spike in gun and ammo sales only one year ago combined with statistics that say gun violence is down enough to conclude the pro-gun crowd was right? Or, do these trends need to stand the test of time?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment?