Gov. & Law.
20 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Eren Schneiter from Littlebytesnews Current Events
Scoop.it!

The Dirty Little Secret About Gun Control Laws...

The Dirty Little Secret About Gun Control Laws... | Gov. & Law. | Scoop.it
The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually
control guns.

 

Amid all the heated, emotional advocacy of gun control, have you ever heard even one person present convincing hard evidence that tighter gun control laws have in fact reduced murders?

Think about all the states, communities within states, as well as foreign countries, that have either tight gun control laws or loose or non-existent gun control laws. With so many variations and so many sources of evidence available, surely there would be some compelling evidence somewhere if tighter gun control laws actually reduced the murder rate.

And if tighter gun control laws don’t actually reduce the murder rate, then why are we being stampeded toward such laws after every shooting that gets media attention?

Have the media outlets that you follow ever even mentioned that some studies have produced evidence that murder rates tend to be higher in places with tight gun control laws?

The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws.

In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.

What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter.

The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious, just because the media pay no attention to them.

Many people who have never fired a gun in their lives, and never faced life-threatening dangers, nevertheless feel qualified to impose legal restrictions that can be fatal to others. And politicians eager to “do something” that gets them publicity know that the votes of the ignorant and the gullible are still votes.

Virtually nothing that is being proposed in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates.

Restricting the magazine capacity available to law-abiding citizens will not restrict the magazine capacity of people who are not law-abiding citizens. Such restrictions just mean that the law-abiding citizen is likely to run out of ammunition first.

Someone would have to be an incredible sharpshooter to fend off three home invaders with just seven shots at moving targets. But seven is the magic number of bullets allowed in a magazine under New York State’s new gun control laws.

People who support such laws seem to blithely assume that they are limiting the damage that can be done by criminals or the mentally ill - as if criminals or mad men care about such laws.

Banning so-called “assault weapons” is a farce, as well as a fraud, because there is no concrete definition of an assault weapon. That is why so many guns have to be specified by name in such bans — and the ones specified to be banned are typically no more dangerous than others that are not specified.

Some people may think that “assault weapons” means automatic weapons. But automatic weapons were banned decades ago. Banning ugly-looking “assault weapons” may have aesthetic benefits, but it does not reduce the dangers to human life in the slightest. You are just as dead when killed by a very plain-looking gun.

 


Via littlebytesnews
more...
Eren Schneiter's comment, April 18, 2013 11:00 AM
People will not be made safer by taking weapons away. All you are doing is limiting the availability of what they can use by a tiny fraction. People killed eachother before guns and they will continue to do so long after they are gone. The problem here is not guns nor their availability, but the fact that these shootings are given so much attention that sick people will see it as a way to make themselves go down in history. Stop focusing on the weapons and the shooters. Don't give them the glory they want. Instead, the government needs to focus more on supporting American Citizen's mental health better and making sure not that there are less weapons, but less people who are willing to do this sort of thing because they have obtained proper care to help them combat their issues.
Samantha Hafften's comment, April 18, 2013 11:05 AM
I agree, the attention should go toward the people who lost their lives and not on the murderer. The government does, in fact need to focus on the mental healthof people and not the weapons. I do have to say that our right, according to the 2nd amendment, is to bear arms, but nobody needs a huge weapon to protect themselves. I think that a small handgun would suffice. In conclusion, I do believe the government should limit the kinds of weapons citizens are able to purchase/have access to.
MsHaeussinger's comment, April 21, 2013 1:32 PM
Great job picking up some very interesting stories! Looks like you all understand that by making a martyr of the killers we are just encouraging more incidents.
Scooped by Eren Schneiter
Scoop.it!

Marbury v. Madison - US Supreme Court Decision that any law that violates the Constitution is automatically void.

Marbury v. Madison - US Supreme Court Decision that any law that violates the Constitution is automatically void. | Gov. & Law. | Scoop.it
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as...
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Eren Schneiter from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME
Scoop.it!

How Egypt’s radical rulers crush the lives and hopes of women. Women stood shoulder to shoulder with men in Tahrir Square in 2011. Now they are back on the streets, opposing a new constitution that...

How Egypt’s radical rulers crush the lives and hopes of women. Women stood shoulder to shoulder with men in Tahrir Square in 2011. Now they are back on the streets, opposing a new constitution that... | Gov. & Law. | Scoop.it
Women stood shoulder to shoulder with men in Tahrir Square in 2011. Now they are back on the streets, opposing a new constitution that sweeps away their rights

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
more...
Samantha Hafften's comment, April 12, 2013 4:11 PM
Women should not get their rights taken away. It is a good thing that they are opposing the new constitution and fighting for their rights.
Rescooped by Eren Schneiter from Amendments of the U.S Constitution
Scoop.it!

Abuse of The 1st amendment

People are "practicing" their 1st Amendment rights by going to funerals of dead soldiers protesting "Thank GOD for dead soldiers." A new law has been announced that prohibits protests 500 ft near funerals. People protesting at funerals are unconstitutional and disrespectful. People are cruel, and taking their rights a bit too far.


Via Victoria Fortunato
more...
Eren Schneiter's comment, April 18, 2013 10:55 AM
This is a gross abuse of the first amendment of the United States constitution, and a terrible thing to inflict upon those grieving families who have lost loved ones to protect those very rights. This sort of thing, while being totally legal, is a good example of how there should be a justifiable punishment for those going around and doing this sort of thing. Prohibiting what they can say as they have lost the right to react to situations in a normal, thoughtful manner. You can say what you want without the government intruding upon your freedom, but that gives you no right to protest the lives of others.
Rescooped by Eren Schneiter from Coffee Party Feminists
Scoop.it!

Four amendments that almost made it into the Constitution

Four amendments that almost made it into the Constitution | Gov. & Law. | Scoop.it

Betty Ford’s “bloomer flag.” Source: Ford Library and Museum


March 22 [marked] the 41st anniversary of congressional approval of the Equal Rights Amendment, which almost became part of the Constitution in the 1970s. But it wasn’t the only amendment that came close.


The Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA, lost momentum after the House, Senate, and 30 states approved the act, which forbade discrimination based on gender. After Congress passed it by a two-thirds majority in 1972, it still needed the approval of 38 states to become a law.


[MORE]


Via J'nene Solidarity Kay
more...
Samantha Hafften's curator insight, April 10, 2013 12:58 PM

I find this interesting the it took so long to get the ERA amendment almost ratified.  Congress gave it a 7 year deadline, but then extended the deadline; I do not thing that they should be able to extend the deadline.

MsHaeussinger's comment, April 10, 2013 1:05 PM
We still don't have an equal rights amendment that applies directly to women, however, the 14th amendment is meant to apply to everyone.
jclark's comment, April 11, 2013 11:50 AM
I Hope that congress will eventually be able to work together on stuff that actually matters, as opposed to bickering, and filibustering back and forth. You know, ever since bush got out of office, The republicans have been the whiniest Party i have ever seen, I hope they can pull their heads out of the sand and realize what they are doing to us.