In 1979, the group, renamed Handgun Control, Inc., updated its prediction, saying, “over 50 million handguns flood the houses and streets of our nation. . . . If we continue at this pace, we will have equipped ourselves with more than 100 million handguns by the turn of the century.” Hoping to provoke the reader to answer “no,” it asked, “Will we be safer then?”
“More guns = more crime” is an article of faith for some politicians too.
In order to answer yes to the question, "Will we be safer," and to refute the idea that more guns = more CRIME, the article produces several Linoge-like charts on murder. Isn't it a bit misleading to leave out the suicides and woundings and criminal threatening that're done with those guns. Don't those things also militate against the concept of "safer."
Even accidents are often criminal due to improper storage and negligent supervision of children.
What's your opinion? Mine is the NRA could learn a few tricks from Linoge. At least he never tried to pass off such a simple and superficial disconnect as this. His are much more complex. I guess the NRA can do this because they're preaching to the choir.
Go ahead, choirboys, tell me how you can disprove decreased safety by citing muder stats and leaving out all the rest.
Please leave a comment.