According to my copy of
Criminal Justice by Inciardi (an old edition I admit) the FBI is able to say that at least 50% of all violent crimes are committed by a mere 1.5% of the total population, and only 3% of the population in any given area will commit a violent act of any sort in their lifetimes. So half of the violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
REPEAT OFFENDERS.
So one can simply ask what was the population in the last census, and then figure out what 1.5% of the population is, and then compare that figure to the total number of prison beds, to determine if there is sufficient prison space. (You will find every state in the Union is woefully under the needed amount)
Before banning any item, how about jailing known, violent individuals for long periods of time?
Florida once had a low repeat offender rate, and it had no parole system. The Federal Government, in the wisdom of the 1960's, determined that the Florida system was unfair in that it locked away too many minority offenders. So the state was forced to enact a parole system, and lucky Florida's repeat offender rate jump up to match the national average.
Does the average voting Joe know that the Federal Government has no parole system, but expects the states to maintain such a system? Another excellent example of Federal decision making that the government sees fit to ignore on its level.
Anti-firearms people love to tout foreign countries and their crime rates..., when you check those countries' legal systems, you may find it's not the lack of firearms or the heavy restrictions..., it may be guarantee of punishment. In Germany (iirc) if you get 5 years, you do the whole 60 months. "Good behavior" is what you should've been doing instead of committing crime; it holds no weight if you are good in prison. Some of the countries they cite have systems where the accused is guilty when charged, and must prove innocence. Not really a fair comparison.
The late Peter Jennings of ABC News once compared Vancouver BC to Seattle WA, very similar cities in demographics and economic at that time, and Jennings touted the lack of handgun deaths in the very restrictive atmosphere of Canada (he was born a Canadian). He was correct on that point, BUT...,
He never bothered to inform the audience that the murder rates for both cities were equal that year..., the Canadians merely found other means to kill each other than handguns when the handguns were not available.
In closing, blaming crime on handguns is the same as blaming spoons for national obesity. (btw obesity will cause more deaths and cost more money to the tax payers than handguns ever will.)
I am sorry to confuse the issue with facts, as I am sure previous posters on this topic are as well.
LD
