Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
President Obama issued a number of Executive Orders about guns. One of them gave money to the Center for Disease Control, to study what happens when people own guns.
I'd say the results are in, and the question has been answered. When ordinary law-abiding people own their own guns, they (and the people around them) are a lot safer than when they don't.
Which is why so-called "gun control" laws should be abolished.
Even if it were legal for everyone to carry, most people still wouldn't bother. I probably wouldn't, most of the time. But a few people would. And then, the crooks planning to mug an old lady, would know there was probably someone in the crowd nearby who has a gun, maybe a couple of somebodies. And he wouldn't know who they are, or where.
But he would know that if he whacked the old lady over the head and grabbed her bag, he'd probably get a bullet or two from unknown directions, and there was nothing he could do to prevent it.
Except, decide not to whack the old lady in the first place.
WHich is why allowing universal caryy, makes society safer. Most people still wouldn't bother carrying a gun. But the bad guys would decide not to commit their crimes, a lot more often.
There is really no good data on this. You'd have to take into account all of the instances where loss of life is avoided due to gun use, both police and private, as well as all the lives that are taken with guns in crimes, drug activity, inner cities, government activities, wars, etc. And broadening it further, some of those lives could have been saved or would have been taken without guns, so you don't really have a full incremental picture even if you could just do that first analysis. Groups with biased pro/con agendas can easily mine the available data field and come up with whatever answer they want to see.
Narrowly speaking, my guess is that probably that more lives are taken with guns than saved. Incapacitation of living beings is, after all, their primary function as a tool, and that is how and why the tool holder would most likely invoke their use. It's rational inference, but it is a guess.
That's not to say that this means they should all be banned. But it does suggest that they should be reasonably regulated.
My question--
As it relates to guns, are more lives saved and protected or harmed?
It all boils down to three facts that gun control proponents
have not been able to address:
(1) There is a direct relationship between restrictive gun control laws and increased crime. Almost all gun control laws have been statistically proven to be linked to increases in crime.
(2) Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Using a firearm to harm another is already illegal.
Proponents might want to spend more time thinking about the facts, and less time writing about feelings that won't fix the problem.
(3) IT'S BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY TWELVE THEN BURIED BY SIX !
I just cited two sources, both from the U.S. Government.
Were you about to show why they are not "good"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
