On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 8:01 AM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > All of the above seems to be simple enough logically for anyone to > understand who has been able to understand the logic of simple arithmetic, > algebra, and the like. > > > Well, it didn't work in India, did it? It didn't work in Chicago. It didn't > work in DC. That tells me that it isn't simple. What would be your next step > in India? I mean, since the gun ban didn't work. > > Bob Hansen
Talking about these city "islands" is a red herring or a straw man.
The reason it does not work in these cites as well as it could (it works some - consider how bad it would be with no control at all in these very densely populated areas), is because of the island effect - places with almost no control in comparison are within driving distance, easy access, easy to smuggle guns back in.
If you claim that gun control works not at all, then consider that the US actually tried it that way, the way with no control at all - and the voters in the 1800s in various towns and cities decided that enough was enough, which is why gun control laws came into existence in towns and cities.
Learn from US gun control laws, their history:
Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday got famous in part for enforcing gun control laws:
Quote: "...one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West's most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.
"You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. "It was an effort to control the violence.""
This violence in question was, for instance, what a reasonable person should expect if we were to allow everyone to carry firearms into, say, a saloon or a bar: Instead of merely bar fights among drunks in the bars on a regular basis we would have mass killings among drunks in the bars on a regular basis.
It's simply a fact that no control at all is much worse than at least some control. So please, no more of these red herrings or straw men when talking about these city islands.
in which I show and explain why - when we get rid of this "island" effect - which is largely what happens when we compare country by country - there is in in fact a statistical relationship between gun control and murder rates: The more of the former, the less of the latter. No it's not a perfect correlation, but the pattern is there to be seen.