I always believed strict gun laws promoted more crime. Anti gun laws only affect the average law-abiding citizen and not so much the criminal. Apparently, my thinking is incredibly narrow.
This quote is from another board where we were discussing crime in boston. Here's a response I received:
height=8
"There is no such thing is a less strict gun law that would have any effect on the situation in Boston and it's an incredibly narrow conclusion to assume tough gun laws equal more violent crime.That just speaks to a certain level of dishonesty in the NRA's rhetoric. It sounds good enough to most people, but there's no way anyone can really prove a cause and effect relationship between tougher gun laws and more crime.
Cause I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind really would believe that trigger locks, background checks, mandatory safety certification/registration, and shit like that would really hurt the situation with urban violence like the Metro-Boston area is dealing with now.
Particularly when it's much easier to look at how bad the police force deteriorated in their ability to handle...well.....anything." |
I responded that trigger locks or stricter gun laws aren't going to deter criminals, but only the average joe, and received this response:
height=8
"That's why I used the phrase "in their right mind" hich The next honest, reasonable qualified person who can't buy a gun because of a background check when he/she should've been able to will be the first.
With something like crime, it's never as simple as "gun laws are good/bad" - I find it hard to believe that the net effects of these laws are negative, but I really don't see how anyone expects em to eliminate crime. That's law enforcement's job.
Hell, it seems like 90% of all gun control reforms introduced in this country (at any level) have been reacting to the status quo of a high profile incident or apparent rash of problems anyway. If there wasn't a problem with violent crime related to firearms, nobody'd be calling for gun control, right?
I'd imagine a lot of what the NRA does involves states with no real history of a crime problem and no laws to accompany that problem and holds em up against cities and states which have had problems and did enact laws to say "Well this state has some of the loosest gun laws in the country and crime is ridiculously low, while that state has tough laws and still has crime"
It looks nice and all but it's a bullshit premise and a cheap attempt to oversimplify the issue." |
In your opinion, knowing how dedicated most of you are to the right to bear arms, am I full of shit in my thinking, or "oversimplifying the issue"? I've been an NRA life member for edit: more than 7 years now and I don't think they make up things to push their agenda.
Thank you in advance for your response....