I see sometimes people compare countries, but it doesn't hold water if you compare states.
Violent crime is way up in Mattapan, one of the remaining low-income areas in Boston.
The anti-gun nuts blame this on loose gun laws in other states, including Vermont.
By that logic, if access to guns causes gun violence, then the murder rate should be skyrocketing in Vermont and should have gone up there first and then spread to Mattapan.
But that's not what happened.
Caring about the victims of violent crime in poor neighborhoods means actually trying to solve the problem - not using it as a straw man to support a political agenda that has nothing to do with the actual problem. Yet that's what the Left does with this issue.
2007-07-17 09:24:04 · 11 answers · asked by truthisback 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
RH by your logic let's ban cars too.
Again - yes nationwide we have guns and we have gun crimes - - but the states with the most lax gun laws don't correspond to the states with the highest crime rates. Same for cities. Again, if lax gun laws in VT were the reason for gun crimes in Mattapan, the gun crimes in Mattapan would be a spillover from a worse problem in VT - but it is not.
The gun violence problem in Mattapan is the result of factors local to Mattapan.
2007-07-17 14:01:08 · update #1
If gun control makes us safer, NYNY, Chicago and DC would be the safest places in the world.
If people actually had the right to bear arms and chose to do so, that idiot that shot up Virginia Tech would not have been able to reload, let alone reload at least 15 times.
If you want to stop violent crime, arm the law abiding citizens.
It make you think twice before you commit a crime when you don't know if the little old lady over in the corner might just take your head off.
2007-07-17 09:30:18 · answer #1 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In reality, both sides of the argument are a fallacy.
It depends on what type of people live in an area, and what kind of laws they are.
I have lived in two states with very liberal gun laws,
Nevada, and Arkansas.
In Nevada I could take a safety course and apply for a conceal carry permit, random acts of violent crime, with handguns, did seem to be much smaller. BUT domestic acts of violence resulting from rage, appeared to be splattered across the news all of the time, including nuts walking into grocery stores and having a shooting spree with shotgun or rifle, rather than a shopping spree.
Arkansas laws where even more liberal, I was able to buy a 9mm and ammo, off a yard sale table, and carry it under the seat of my truck without going to jail.
Everytime you turn around, there seemed to be shootings and armed violence involving handguns in larger more populated areas. In the smaller rural areas, we never had break-ins or burglaries, and people seemed to be far more respectful when they come to your door.
Personally, I prefer the more liberal gun laws, but I don't have a child in school either. With freedom, comes responsibility, and personally, I don't think a majority of Americans are responsible enough to handle liberal gun laws. If gun safety and responsibility was taught in school at an earlier age, that might be a different story, but if you are too young to learn about responsibility with your sexual organs and about the realities of drugs, you are too young to be learning about guns.
We shelter kids far too much in this country, for the fear of them choosing the wrong path. It is no wonder they act like children until they are 30.
2007-07-17 09:45:47 · answer #2 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the guns that cause crimes right now are obtained illegally. Key words: right now, and illegally.
The laws we have now are already being broken to cause crimes, so what would more laws do? This doesn't mean "lets not have any laws," it means we need more *enforcement* of the laws we have now.
And why does the Left even pretend to want to stop crime, they're usually the first to protect the criminals anyway. Have you ever met a conservative defense lawyer? They blame the LAWS because if they blamed the PEOPLE they wouldn't get votes. That's also why conservatives aren't popular in poor neighborhoods; they blame the people who pull the trigger (and it hurts to admit responsibility), while the liberals make you feel good and blame an abstract force (laws).
2007-07-17 09:38:24 · answer #3 · answered by null 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's simplistic to think any single cause is the sole factor in crime rates.
As such, if you really want to see the effects of one element (such as gun laws) you must compare areas that are demographically almost identical. Thus comparing a low-income part of a single city to an entire state (and one that's much richer) produces meaningless results.
2007-07-17 09:27:46 · answer #4 · answered by Steve 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One factor of violent crime is not lax gun laws because most criminals get their guns from the black market.
John Stossel had a segment on it. He asked some criminals and they said they don't fear gun laws at all.
2007-07-17 09:30:43 · answer #5 · answered by Jason 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No glorification of violent crimes causes violent crimes.
Did we have gun control issues prior to television?
Case closed.
Edit: Gun laws are just that....Laws.
Do people who commit violent crimes give a rats butt about laws?
2007-07-17 09:29:07 · answer #6 · answered by mbush40 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes because a gun has the power to kill and you never know what someone could do with a gun....even if that person has been checked out they can still use their gun to kill and that is why guns are so risky.
2007-07-17 09:29:52 · answer #7 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You are so right! We should not just make any kind of guns legal anywhere, we should require everyone to carry assault rifles. Then we'd all be safe.
Or so I heard at the last NRA meeting.
2007-07-17 09:29:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, infact quite the opposite.
2007-07-17 09:40:07 · answer #9 · answered by Paul C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guns are of no danger..It's the idiot with his finger on the trigger
2007-07-17 09:29:59 · answer #10 · answered by John 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋