If restricting gun ownership is the answer to gun violence, why is it that the states/cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest gun related violence? Does anyone REALLY think that by eliminating gun sales to honest, decent citizens we are going to eliminate gun related violence? Does making marijuana illegal actually keep folks from obtaining marijuana? Yes, decent law abiding folks will not have guns, but is that what you really want? I don't know the stats on gun ownership to gun crime, but I would suggest that over all, it has to be pretty low. If there really is over 300 million guns owned in America, then the gun crime to gun ownership is pretty low. So, do we penalize decent folks because of a very minute amount of lawlessness related to possession of guns? How about we ban automobiles because a very few car owners drive under the influence? Take all cars away from decent folks. How about banning all alcohol sales because a very few abusers drive under the influence? Oh yeah, that was tried already and how did that work? Maybe we should make laws that prohibit murder....oh...right....done that.
Now, we get to the common argument that will undoubtedly come up (as always) about rate of fire. "Oh, but a semiautomatic firearm can kill lots of people." Yep, but so can a bomb, so can poisonous gas, and so can a truck or car. Do we penalize the majority for the actions of the minority? Like someone else said, how many murders by firearm in the Villages?
Take away the cause, not the method.
|