One was gang related, the other was domestic. These are the kinds of shootings that gun-rights activists try to claim they have nothing to do with. But, can they really say that? I don't think so. As supporters of the very laws, or lack thereof, that enable disqualified people to get guns as easily as buying milk at the grocery story, they share in the responsibility.
Unless you support the simple gun control laws that would prevent much of this violence, then you are partly responsible for the violence. The only response from the gun crowd that rings true is the one which says this is the price we must pay for freedom. I disagree with that, but at least it makes sense in a calculating kind of way, and it recognizes that the responsibility for this gun violence does not stop with the doers of it but also extends to the enablers.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Unless you support the simple gun control laws that would prevent much of this violence, then you are partly responsible for the violence. "
ReplyDeleteWhat law will prevent someone from breaking the law and why do you assume that a person who will break one law won't break that law?
California already has severe gun control. Worked out real well for these folks didn't it?
ReplyDelete"Unless you support the simple gun control laws that would prevent much of this violence, then you are partly responsible for the violence."
ReplyDeleteEvidence that any of these "simple" gun control laws have prevented anything, anywhere else they've already been tried?
Didn't think so. How much are you going to re-use this same line over and over without anything to back it up with?
Maybe if you say a lie enough times, it will magically become true?
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, It's not a lie and in fact if I'm not mistaken, you yourself said it made sense.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, you're the one repeating yourself. I have provided links to stories about places where gun control has worked. Do you need them again. Here and here.
@Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteI have said that on the SURFACE gun control makes sense, but that's only if you blame the tool (the symptom) instead of the actual cause behind it.
I consider it a lie to claim that gun control prevents violence when there's no real evidence that it has ever been responsible for lowering the rate of violent firearm-related crime.
I have never seen the Philippines example you linked to, but I find it very strange that they would suggest that a gun ban would effect NON-firearm related crimes. I DO see how if they start strictly enforcing ALL laws and making more arrests that both firearm and non-firearm related crimes would decrease significantly, and it appears from the article that is what they did.
Australia?
From the article you linked to:
"The use of firearms in homicide increased slightly on 2006-07 (nine per cent) but is down sharply from 25 per cent two decades ago.
The report said in most cases firearms used in homicide were unregistered and the gun users unlicensed."
homicide rates and even firearm-related homicide rates were already on a mostly steady decrease from even before the gun ban/buyback:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
So firearm-related homicide has been decreasing, but stabbing homicide has increased... Do you think "knife control" laws would fix that, too?
So you've found two cases where gun control loosely correlates to a reduction in firearm-related crime...Correlation is not causation, of course.
This is out of HOW many countries where gun control has had no correlation or proven effect whatsoever?
...Orygunner...
@Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteOh, some more details of the "successful" gun ban in the Phillipines:
http://www.intellasia.net/news/articles/society/111284254.shtml
Philippines also has it's own issues, such as a substantially higher crime rate than the US. If you take ANY area with high crime and dump 100,000 police officers into it looking for contraband (and violating people's rights to do it), of course the rate of ALL crime is going to drop substantially.
You can have freedom and risk of crime, or you can have marginally more safety and a police state. You can't have adequate liberty and a police state.
...Orygunner...
Not just two examples, there are others. I'd say anywhere gun control is properly legislated and enforced, this would eliminate the USA of course, it would work. That much is common sense.
ReplyDelete