George Costanza
A Friendly Liberal
- Thread starter
- #61
Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what?
So what? You've put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing the bad guys with whatever firearm/magazine they like. That's what.
A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.
Ah, but there will NOT be more violence. Years of statistics prove that. As more firearms came into public hands and as exponentially more CCW permits were issued in states across the country, violent crime DECLINED. Your fears are unfounded in reality. Try reading Lott's groundbreaking book "More guns, less crime" for all the evidence any rational person could need.
But even in the absence of such evidence, why in the hell would you be okay with good guys being put into a position where they are unable to defend themselves? You understand the bad guys will still have the firearms but it's as though you're fine with law abiding citizens unable to adequately defend themselves. I find that incredibly odd.
Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.
You are assuming something bad will happen with armed citizens when all the evidence proves that is not the case. Again, after states saw exponential increases in CCW permits and the number of legally owned firearms, crime DECREASED.
To put it another way, the guy with a CCW permit driving down the road is likely to be the most polite and courteous driver on the road. We go out of our way to avoid petty incidents of road rage and domestic disputes. That's the reality of armed society...it's a polite (and safe) society.
Another way to look at it is this: For all the firearm in America (and we have LOTS of them), we don't even break into the top 100 countries when it comes to murder rates. More guns does not mean more crime. It means less.
So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.
History does not support that conclusion. Crime in England and Australia skyrocketed AFTER they virtually banned civilian gun ownership, and this during a time period in which other western nations were seeing a decrease in crime rates. While here in America, states that lessen gun control with more CCW permits saw crime plummet.
What you think might happen is not supported by any empirical evidence. We've had enough "feel good" legislation that only makes the problem worse.
All right - some good comments here. I can't argue with statistics. I would hope yours are correct - that an armed population results in less violence than an unarmed one. It runs contrary to common sense to me - I am in a profession where I deal with the end result of violence on a daily basis. I am a public defender. I see the propensity for violence in such things as road rage incidents, domestic disputes, robberies, etc. It sure seems to me that if guns were injected into all such situations, much more potential harm would come out of it.
I am aware of the studies that have been done in this regard and which are often cited by opponents to gun control. No one wants "feel good" legislation that accomplishes nothing and which may, in fact, actually worsen the situation.
I keep coming back to my original point, however. I just think that the Republican Party is mistakenly assuming that their stance on gun control is supported by the majority of the people in this country. I don't think it is - especailly on the heels of the Colorado theater killings and the Conn. school killings.