| From: | Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Value and so on.... |
| Date: | Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:20:25 +1000 |
[First, in accordance with GridSec, this is my last post on the subject]
> Don't know. I do know that in America, if you make a map
> of showing the
> per capita violent crime rates and a second map copairing gun regulations
> on a 0 to 100 basis (Vermont with our 2 laws being 0, DC with a
> full ban on
> handguns, many forms of repeating rifles and shotguns, various kinds of
> ammuniton, full registration, permits, and everything else being 99, and
> the few Federal Housing Projects were there is a total ban on firearms
> being 100), you would find that the maps have peak rates in smae areas.
> Also, there have been a number of states that have loosened thier
> concealed
> carry regs in the past ten years. Most of them have seen reductions in
> most catagories of crime that exceed the national drops.
You're using a spurious argument. In many cases, the REASON the tighter
gun-control laws were introduced was that crime, especially armed-crime, was
spiralling out of control. Harsher laws came in, in a futile attempt to
control the situation.
Firearms legislation is not a way of treating crime rates. Done early
enough, it helps prevent violent crime, but it won't stop CRIME. Firearms
legislation is about preserving _life_, not reducing the number of
break-ins. Applying it like a bandage is like using a bandaid to patch a
ruptured artery.
--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
