Flashpoint
Member
I had a realy cool Poli Sci teacher last sem. She started a class conversation on the DC snipers, that lead into gun control, that lead into the topic of our next paper-gun control. Here was I wrote, thought you all might enjoy it.
Gun Laws, a Good Intention
With the recent occurrences of mass killing in schools, disgruntled workers taking out their frustrations in a most violent of fashion, and most recently sniper attacks in the D.C. area, gun control is back in the news. The question to be asked is; would stricter gun control laws stop these senseless crimes? The answer is no. According to statistics the opposite is true. Instead of more strict laws, less or more lenient gun control laws are the answer to help end senseless crimes.
In Wakefield Massachusetts, Michael McDermott walked into an internet consulting firm in which he worked and methodically started executing his co-workers. Incidentally, Massachusetts has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. One of those laws deals with the acquisition of firearms. That gun law requires a permit to purchase a firearm of any type. It does not matter if it is a handgun or long rifle, for personal protection or hunting, a “Firearm Identification Card†must be issued to the owner of the firearm. Upon investigation into the person of Michael McDermott it was discovered that he was never issued a “Firearm Identification Cardâ€. If Massachusetts would have had tougher gun laws would this incident still have occurred, chances are yes. If the ownership of guns would have been more easily acquired for the average law abiding citizen there would have been a greater chance that someone could have cut the onslaught short.
Liberal minds like the one of Scott Hashbarger who, in the late nineties, pushed for more stringent gun control laws had good intentions, but to no avail. In Massachusetts, which has a population of 6,016,425 people only 175,000 people can legally carry a handgun for protection. That is roughly 2 percent of the population legally carry a gun for protection yet the murder rate per 100,000 people is 2.0, the forcible rape rate is 27.4, and the robbery rate per 100,000 people is 96.6. A look at the crime rate of New Jersey, which as a legally carry for protection percentage of 5/100ths of 1 percent (4,300 people out of 7,747,750), has a murder rate of 4.0, a forcible rape rate of 22.5, and a robbery rate of 309 per 100,000 people. In contrast, Vermont which allows anyone, resident or non-resident, to carry firearms concealed or unconcealed without a permit, has a murder rate of 1.5, forcible rape rate of 26.5, and a robbery rate of 13.4 per 100,000 people. Compare Vermont’s statistics to that of New Jersey; the evidence is clear, gun control has an adverse effect on crime.
So why do so many liberals support gun control? Because, liberals find it easier to point at the flashy pictures of murder and mayhem and scream about gun control instead of pulling the boring statistics and see the futility of such laws. Making gun laws with the right intent has not, nor by the evidence ever will, stop gun violence. Adding gun laws, with the right intent, will however continue the assault of our constitutional right granted to us by the second amendment to keep and bear arms. The public must not succumb to the liberal rhetoric of gun control. Instead efforts need to be made to discover new venues to curb the violence that is plaguing our nation, such as stricter penalties for proven offenders.
According to statistics gun control laws have had no effect on stopping gun related violence. Gun control has proven to be a bad answer to a bad problem. An easy way out that has, in essence, trampled the rights of law-abiding citizens, and made defense from those with no consideration for life or law more difficult.
Gun Laws, a Good Intention
With the recent occurrences of mass killing in schools, disgruntled workers taking out their frustrations in a most violent of fashion, and most recently sniper attacks in the D.C. area, gun control is back in the news. The question to be asked is; would stricter gun control laws stop these senseless crimes? The answer is no. According to statistics the opposite is true. Instead of more strict laws, less or more lenient gun control laws are the answer to help end senseless crimes.
In Wakefield Massachusetts, Michael McDermott walked into an internet consulting firm in which he worked and methodically started executing his co-workers. Incidentally, Massachusetts has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. One of those laws deals with the acquisition of firearms. That gun law requires a permit to purchase a firearm of any type. It does not matter if it is a handgun or long rifle, for personal protection or hunting, a “Firearm Identification Card†must be issued to the owner of the firearm. Upon investigation into the person of Michael McDermott it was discovered that he was never issued a “Firearm Identification Cardâ€. If Massachusetts would have had tougher gun laws would this incident still have occurred, chances are yes. If the ownership of guns would have been more easily acquired for the average law abiding citizen there would have been a greater chance that someone could have cut the onslaught short.
Liberal minds like the one of Scott Hashbarger who, in the late nineties, pushed for more stringent gun control laws had good intentions, but to no avail. In Massachusetts, which has a population of 6,016,425 people only 175,000 people can legally carry a handgun for protection. That is roughly 2 percent of the population legally carry a gun for protection yet the murder rate per 100,000 people is 2.0, the forcible rape rate is 27.4, and the robbery rate per 100,000 people is 96.6. A look at the crime rate of New Jersey, which as a legally carry for protection percentage of 5/100ths of 1 percent (4,300 people out of 7,747,750), has a murder rate of 4.0, a forcible rape rate of 22.5, and a robbery rate of 309 per 100,000 people. In contrast, Vermont which allows anyone, resident or non-resident, to carry firearms concealed or unconcealed without a permit, has a murder rate of 1.5, forcible rape rate of 26.5, and a robbery rate of 13.4 per 100,000 people. Compare Vermont’s statistics to that of New Jersey; the evidence is clear, gun control has an adverse effect on crime.
So why do so many liberals support gun control? Because, liberals find it easier to point at the flashy pictures of murder and mayhem and scream about gun control instead of pulling the boring statistics and see the futility of such laws. Making gun laws with the right intent has not, nor by the evidence ever will, stop gun violence. Adding gun laws, with the right intent, will however continue the assault of our constitutional right granted to us by the second amendment to keep and bear arms. The public must not succumb to the liberal rhetoric of gun control. Instead efforts need to be made to discover new venues to curb the violence that is plaguing our nation, such as stricter penalties for proven offenders.
According to statistics gun control laws have had no effect on stopping gun related violence. Gun control has proven to be a bad answer to a bad problem. An easy way out that has, in essence, trampled the rights of law-abiding citizens, and made defense from those with no consideration for life or law more difficult.
Last edited: