Evidence says gun laws don't work

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | February 1, 2007 | MICHAEL S. BROWN

[ExSoldier]

"Which gun laws, if any, will truly reduce violence?"

Now wait a minute. I can think of ONE! Kennesaw, Georgia has a GUN LAW that MANDATES each and every home in the town have a working firearm in good order. Exceptions allowed for religious purposes. Kennesaw already had a low rate of violence, but when that passed in the 80's the crime rate dropped to almost nil.

[ExSoldier]

I feel sad for the author of this outstanding piece of writing. He is obviously blinded to the fact that those who push gun control care not a whit about reducing crime. They couldn't care less about armed bad guys because to them, everybody with a gun is a bad guy.

This piece ignores the reality that in order to achieve World Order ~tinfoil hat glows, little propeller on top spins madly~, the USA must be unilaterally disarmed. Look at the White House web site and check on the progress of the North American Security Zone and trans Texas Super Highway, both of which will effectively remove our national borders with Mexico and Canada. Q: Do our neighbors to the north and south like our gun laws? Do they recognize the validity of the entire US Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights?

~Pant Pant~....~tinfoil hat cools, propeller slows~

[Joe Brower]

Why, you're absolutely right! I stand corrected! $;-)

[blackie]

No Guns ~ No Rights!

[lepton]

"Which gun laws, if any, will truly reduce violence?" Answer: None. But we knew that already. If simply passing laws was the key, simply outlawing murder would do the job.

Is that actually true? Anti-gun laws surely fail...but what about laws which ENCOURAGE ownership and practice?

[supercat]

Evidence says gun laws don't work

To say whether something works or not, it's necessary to identify what it's supposed to do. If the objective of gun laws is to reduce citizens to serfs, I would suggest that while they are not as effective as Boxer et al. would like, they are nonetheless effective enough to be dangerous.

[Joe Brower]

You're correct. See post #21.

When the term "gun laws" is used, it is typically in reference to laws that are hostile to individual gun ownership and in defiance of the Constitution. It was in that context I replied.

[lepton]

When the term "gun laws" is used, it is typically in reference to laws that are hostile to individual gun ownership and in defiance of the Constitution. It was in that context I replied

Oh sure, I inderstood...I was musing. I was aware of the Kennesaw example, and the limited examination of the effect of widespread CCW, but my comment was on the effect of actually PROMOTING gun ownership and training like in the Kennesaw example rather than the passive effect of simply refraining from violating civil rights.