Date: Dec 19, 2012 11:46 AM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?
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:
"Gun laws were tougher in old Tombstone"
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.
I again reiterate everything I said in my post
"Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?"
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