Solomon Hines should do some research on gun control legislation effectiveness. From Harvard, that bastion of extreme Ivy League liberalism, a study published in 2007 Harvard Journal of Law, Titled: Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?, found some surprising things. Here’s a link: beliefnet.com.
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “a negative correlation, that is, where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest. There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.
Anyone can do a Google search of the 10 cities with the highest gun violence rates in the U.S. There is one stark correlation; they are all under control of the Democratic Party for many years. They have some of the toughest gun control laws.
A criminal is one who breaks the law; therefore, a law does not affect a criminal. Enforcement of a law is required for the law to have an effect on a criminal.
“Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies,” writes Bach, “estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired.”
A gun control law only disarms law abiding citizens, not criminals. Murder is a far more serious crime than a gun law violation, so why do you think a gun control law would stop a murder?
– William Malinski