None of that forms a coherent argument.
Let's take them one by one:
1) It is true. Guns increase lethality. So what? They increase lethality on both sides. How many perps are shot by police every year? Maybe we should disarm the police so fewer people will die. In any case the only "practical" solution to thsi problem is total confiscation. And that isn't practical.
2) Records on gun transaction help solve crimes. Since most guns used in crimes are stolen in the first place, this is patently false. How many trace requests end up solving crimes? I would bet very few. The experience with Maryland's ballistic fingerprinting nonsense should be instructive. Millions of dollars spent, millions of gun fingerprinted, zero crimes solves.
3) This is really self defeating. The argument is that more guns in legal hands inevitably filter into the illegal market by getting stolen.
The corollary to that is that if we dont allow legal ownership then somehow illegal ownership will go away. But what do you do with the millions of guns already in illegal ownership? Tell law abiding citizens, sorry, too bad? Leaving your citizens defenseless against criminals doesn't sound like a recipe for success. In any case, stricter gun contol has not lowered crime rates in places thathave them. The opposite if anything.
4)I just don't know what to say to this. Even if it's true, so what?
5) This seems to undermine the entire argument. If you say, if Chicago's ban goes away then not much will happen, then what good did the ban do in the first place? And if the answer is nothing, then what good will a strict permit scheme like nY's do, when it amounts basically to a ban?
The article is poorly thought out and reasoned. Jsut like all gun control arguments.
