|
Fair enough, Alex. As with all here, I have a set of beliefs. I do not claim that these are facts. They may be summarized as:
1) I believe that existing studies are inconclusive, largely because of two factors. First, that the sample sizes are typically too small to have statistical validity. Second, that the issue of violent crime is too complex and depends on too many variables to draw meaningful correlations between rates of gun ownership and the incidence of crime. Alex, the page you quoted said "...the National Academy of Sciences ... found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime." Greater access to guns does not appear to equal more violent crime. Nor does it appear to decrease violent crime.
2) I believe that an insane mass murderer will kill people any way he or she can. If a legal route is available it will be followed and a gun will likely be purchased. If not, then the weapon will be acquired illegally or an alternative weapon will be found. I believe that stricter gun laws will not stop these people. It's a societal problem, not a legislative one.
3) I believe that most gun crime is committed with illegal firearms. I believe that increased gun control will not stop a person already breaking the law from continuing to break the law.
4) I believe that most gun-related suicide is committed with legal firearms. I also believe that if a gun isn't available, the suicide will happen anyway, via an alternate means.
5) I believe that realistic, reasonable and well-enforced restrictions on access to firearms are a good idea. That includes background checks, record-keeping with follow-up if a gun is used in a crime, loss of the right with conviction on criminal charges, stiff penalties, etc.
6) I believe that extreme views on both sides of the issue are ludicrous. The administration isn't out to disarm the population. Nor is everyone who chooses to own a firearm a wild-eyed, trigger-happy second-amendment crusader.
7) I believe that draconian measures such as outright bans or permit laws so strict that they amount to a ban are a bad idea because they never work. They affect those who obey the law, not those who willfully break it.
8) I believe that eliminating all restrictions is also a bad idea because as anyone who uses a firearm as a deterrent for personal defense will tell you, there ARE evil people out there and frankly, I'd rather they had some barrier to access.
9) I believe that I am the person best able to determine whether I should own a firearm. In locations where strict laws exist, the issuing agency decides based on "need." That does not sit well with me. If I follow the rules, then "need" should not come into the discussion.
10) I believe that more extensive training and education than is currently required is a good idea, especially in issues related to the law, judgment and decision-making. By the way, for those on the anti-gun side of the debate… guess who provides the education on safety required for those seeking permits? The NRA, because the NRA has a vested interest in responsible ownership and use.
|