An incredibly narrow conclusion?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - An incredibly narrow conclusion?

Posted: 6/15/2007 12:59:25 PM EDT

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....

Posted: 6/15/2007 9:49:51 PM EDT

[#1]

Gun control is not about crime control and the gun grabbers know it.

Taking guns out of the hands of lawful citizens doesn't do shit to prevent gang bangers from killing each other, dope dealers from shooting each other, or to prevent violence against the weak. I could beat my wife to death just as easy as I could shoot her. Guns are only a tool - not a cause - of crime. When the liberals start blaming objects for the criminals actions you know that they're doing that on purpose. Just like they blame George Bush for Katrina ... loony toons.

Guns are about dependency. When the people are able to protect themselves cops, jailers, and the whole court infrastructure go empty. People without guns need the government to save them ... classic liberalism.

Posted: 6/15/2007 10:04:19 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
<snip>

People without guns need the government to save them ... classic modern liberalism.

Sorry, had to fix it.

Nonetheless, a very astute point.

Posted: 6/15/2007 10:12:43 PM EDT

[#3]

John Lott talked about the false sense of security we get from laws and things like child-proof devices. After child-proof aspirin was marketed the expectation was less deaths and accidents. Wrong, we got more deaths. Two things. Kids are curious and more capable than you think. You aqtually have to still practice the practical things like PUTTING THE CAP ON THE BOTTLE and not LEAVING IT WHERE KIDS CAN GET TO IT. We become lax when we believe too much of the hype and it has unintended consequences.

Posted: 6/16/2007 4:31:01 AM EDT

[#4]

Thank you all for your responses!! And for the link!

I completely agree, and I appreciate being validated in this issue.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - An incredibly narrow conclusion?

General » General Discussion

Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us