The Lunacy of Gun Control Laws
Steve Chapman argues cogently against gun control laws.
As Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck notes, most criminals arm themselves by stealing guns or buying guns stolen by someone else. So new restrictions don’t make much difference to them. The federal ban was a classic illustration of how gun control works. Law-abiding people who rarely misuse their guns were deprived of options. Ex-cons went on as before.
As he notes, the numbers really don’t come out for gun control reducing gun violence. This prompts him to ask the obvious question:
Gun control hasn’t worked as a remedy for crime. So what makes anyone think the answer is more gun control?
April 24th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“most criminals arm themselves by stealing guns or buying guns stolen by someone else.”
Indicating that if law-abiding citizens didn’t have guns, criminals would have a hard time getting them, because there wouldn’t be any to steal.
I agree that any gun control law that isn’t nationwide and isn’t vigorously enforced will do nothing to affect crime rates.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Does that mean you don’t support gun control at all or that you support federally mandate gun control for all?
April 26th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
As I’ve said every time we talk about this, I don’t currently favor any gun control laws, I just think it’s ridiculous to argue that they wouldn’t reduce the number of gun-related deaths/crimes. There are other reasons to be against them.