So how do you respond?
- Thread starter radiotom
- Start date
- Status
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
If the gun control laws led to a reduction in crime, it would be blatantly obvious that gun control works.
But clearly, since that's not the case, gun control is a failure.
But clearly, since that's not the case, gun control is a failure.
HarcyPervin
Member
I think the results answer the question quite nicely...
I don't have any citations with me, but I do believe that in many places, increased gun control has led to increases in violent crimes.
I don't have any citations with me, but I do believe that in many places, increased gun control has led to increases in violent crimes.
BHP FAN
Member
just check out Chicago. some of the toughest gun laws in the United States, and a higher murder rate than Mogadishu.
beatledog7
Member
Ask the anti if cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and DC (which the anti is arguing implemented very strict control as a response to high crime rates), have seen a decrease in the level of crimes committed by people there who legally own guns. The answer is that they have not, because law-abiding gun owners weren't committing crimes before strict gun control.
Then ask if the overall level of crimes involving guns in these cities has been significantly reduced by gun control. It has not, because criminal activity, which is responsible for these crimes, operates outside the law. Bad guys who want guns will always find a way to obtain them. They did before strict control, and they do after its implementation.
Then summarize: Gun control law affects the law-abiding citizen, but is ignored by the criminal. Just like any other law, gun control laws are little more than a minor inconvenience to a criminal.
Then ask if the overall level of crimes involving guns in these cities has been significantly reduced by gun control. It has not, because criminal activity, which is responsible for these crimes, operates outside the law. Bad guys who want guns will always find a way to obtain them. They did before strict control, and they do after its implementation.
Then summarize: Gun control law affects the law-abiding citizen, but is ignored by the criminal. Just like any other law, gun control laws are little more than a minor inconvenience to a criminal.
thunder173
Member
I would have to respond with the fact that under some of the proposed gun control initiatives, myself and my family would essentially be left either defenseless, or at the very least less able to provide an adequate defense.
I live in a rural area where the admitted and demonstrated response time of any assistance from any law enforcement agency would be inefficient and ineffective. Should I ever need immediate assistance from them in the event of a violent criminal act that may be contemplated or undertaken by anyone, it would quite simply take them too long to get here to do me and my family any good.
In such a case, I want to be able to defend myself, my family,...and yes,..my property,..from those who would do me or my family harm. In that law enforcement will need substantial time to arrive on scene, I want to be able to legally acquire the very best and most adequate means to defend myself and my family against those who might attempt to do us harm.
I should be the person to determine what tools I may need to do so, without unreasonable interference, mandate or permission of any government agency.
Further, in the event of potential multiple assailants, I would hope that I have the common sense to have sufficient ammunition on hand, and adequate capacity to accomplish such a defense, or even better,...to deter a further attack,.... until such time as law enforcement can arrive on scene,...whether that means seconds,... or minutes,..or more.
As a citizen, I must unfortunately wait for a back up, (LE), to arrive. That precious little time may mean the difference between life,...or death,..or worse,...to myself and my family.
Your mileage may vary,...but,...do not presume that law enforcement will be there to protect you,...as they will be there only in time to investigate the scene after the fact.
I live in a rural area where the admitted and demonstrated response time of any assistance from any law enforcement agency would be inefficient and ineffective. Should I ever need immediate assistance from them in the event of a violent criminal act that may be contemplated or undertaken by anyone, it would quite simply take them too long to get here to do me and my family any good.
In such a case, I want to be able to defend myself, my family,...and yes,..my property,..from those who would do me or my family harm. In that law enforcement will need substantial time to arrive on scene, I want to be able to legally acquire the very best and most adequate means to defend myself and my family against those who might attempt to do us harm.
I should be the person to determine what tools I may need to do so, without unreasonable interference, mandate or permission of any government agency.
Further, in the event of potential multiple assailants, I would hope that I have the common sense to have sufficient ammunition on hand, and adequate capacity to accomplish such a defense, or even better,...to deter a further attack,.... until such time as law enforcement can arrive on scene,...whether that means seconds,... or minutes,..or more.
As a citizen, I must unfortunately wait for a back up, (LE), to arrive. That precious little time may mean the difference between life,...or death,..or worse,...to myself and my family.
Your mileage may vary,...but,...do not presume that law enforcement will be there to protect you,...as they will be there only in time to investigate the scene after the fact.
Last edited:
Plan2Live
Member
I remind them that Reginald Denny was nearly killed on National Televison by a thug wielding a brick. Not convinced, I then remind them that Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured nearly 700 using fertilizer and diesel fuel and never fired a single shot.
If they still don't get the point I explain that evil people will use whatever means are at their disposal to accomplish the mayem they wish to inflict.
If they still don't get the point I explain that evil people will use whatever means are at their disposal to accomplish the mayem they wish to inflict.
"Gun control" laws have no conclusive impact on crime. Studies from the era of the AWB pointed this out. The DoJ's FBI UCR shows this when you compare murder rates for cities or states with conservative restrictions on gun owners to those with liberal laws regulating gun owners. There's no pattern to murder rates compared to the laws restricting gun owners. These laws neither increase nor decrease violent crime rates. This fact shows that "gun control" has no relationship to crime control.
- Status