What exactly is John Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" trying to say in this paragraph?
"Fortunately, despite many news stories to the contrary, our government has taken a much more sensible approach than outright banning guns. Iraqis are able to keep weapons up to AK-47s in their home or business and are able to carry guns with them with a permit. These AK-47s are real military machine guns, not the semi-automatic versions that fire only one bullet per trigger pull and are banned from being sold in our country by the 1994 so-called assault-weapons ban. Yet, despite Iraqis owning machine guns and the country still not under control, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pointed out that Baghdad is experiencing fewer murders than Washington, DC, where handguns are banned."
What is really being said about America here? That even a war-torn nation full machine gun toting "terrorists" is safer than America? Or that America should be more like Iraq?
Posted in military guns
August 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Spouting nonsense. Baghdad is unquestionably one of the most dangerous cities on the planet, and in Washington DC, virtually all of the murders are done by gang members against other gang members, all of whom are armed. Meanwhile, Japan and many countries of Europe have almost no murders and there are no guns. Are there any con geniuses who will claim Mogadishu is the safest place in the world because everybody walks around with an AK?
August 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
He’s saying that universally (not just in America), guns in the home for protection do indeed deter crime. And he’s right.
A very small amount of research will make that abundantly clear to you.
If you don’t want to do research, ask yourself a very simple question: If you were a criminal, which house would you rather break into:
A. a home where the homeowner might have a firearm
B. a home where you KNOW there is no firearm (because they have been banned, etc.)
DC has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. And my stars, check out their violent crime statistics.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
He is saying that a suicide bomber won’t kill 80 people if someone shoots him first.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
More the former. Look at the statistics, where guns are banned or overly restricted in the states there is more crime than in the parts that at least have an open carry or concealed carry law.
n any given day, look at the gun deaths in the US as opposed to the gun violence in Iraq (a war torn country) and you see more here in the states, but the deaths/violence will be centered around cities or states that have the toughest gun laws.
If a criminal knows the likely hood of someone being armed is next to nil, they are more likely to attack that person. Where as if a criminal is unsure who else is carrying, it makes it harder for the criminal.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
It has been proven many times gun control does not work. In Canada guns have been outlawed for many many years, yet every day someone is shot in Toronto.
Criminals do not obey laws!
Keep repeating that, until you understand.
That is what makes them CRIMINAL’S.
Taking guns away from citizens makes them less safe, period.
If a crook see’s a sign, "NO GUNS" on a store, then he KNOWS he will be the only one with one!
Fact.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
It would tend to side with the belief that armed citizens are less likely to become victims of a crime. Statistics suggest that a lifting of the gun ban in some areas have reduced home invasions. Career criminals are more likely to pick easy targets than those that may pose resistance whether from a dog or gun. The premise that guns lead to violence is flawed when a law abiding citizenry has the right to carry.
If a total nationwide ban on all guns were instituted, guns would still be rampant in our inner cities. Drug smugglers would just add the gun to the list of items to make a profit on. We declared war on drug dealers some years ago, and we all know how that has gone. The same would be for banning weapons. Violent career criminals and gang members would still have the banned weapons leaving an unarmed citizenry. Easy pickings seeing that the police cannot be everywhere and response time could take up to a couple of hours, especially in rural areas. An armed citizenry is a safer citizenry
August 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
That if you’re a gun lover you are more likely to shoot yourself in the foot?!