Posts
Monday, January 5, 2009
Another statistic to support gun control legislation
The Dallas City Council's Public Safety Committee is scheduled to be briefed Monday on the city's homicide rate. The good news is that it is down, significantly, from 197 in 2007 to 154 in 2008, a nearly 22 percent drop. What I found troubling, however, was slide 11 of the briefing, that lists the types of weapons used in the commission of these murders. Nearly two-thirds of them, 102 of the 154, were committed by those using handguns, another argument for outlawing these weapons. Rest easy, you bloodthirsty types that think it's great sport to knock off a deer or splatter a bunch of ducks, I'm not talking about a total ban on all firearms. Six people were killed last year with rifles and two with shotguns, according the briefing. I know we can't make this country completely civilized like many European nations, but banning handguns and perhaps saving 1o2 lives a year in the city of Dallas might be a wonderful place to start.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
If hand guns are banned the following will happen:
Instead of having 107 killed by handguns, we will have 214 killed by criminals with handguns, who will then know that most law abiding citizens will follow the law and be unarmed.
In addition to that you will then have another 200-300+ caused by long guns, because people who wish to protect themselves are also law abiding and if handguns were illegal, they would be forced to openly carry long guns as that would be the only way left to legally carry a gun for protection.
You also failed to mention just how many of those were police, gang, and suicide related...
Another point this brings up is this: When left with only long guns to protect yourself, and you shoot somebody to save your life, you may also shoot one or more people unintentionally perhaps a block or more away since long guns bullets travel much farther and will easily go through the bad guy. This is one reason why handguns are used in self defense to begin with.
Check and see who actually caused those handgun deaths and remove the ones caused by suicide, police, and gangs and I'm sure you will have a much smaller number.
banning guns doesn't end killing, it only makes more easy targets for criminals who by their very nature will not follow any ban or other law anyway (hense the term criminal).
Pete:
In your zeal for a wholly naive means to reduce crime, consider Chicago in the light of Dallas' crime rate. Dallas rate fell by 22%, while Chicago's rate rose by 18%. In Dallas, not only are handguns legal to own for lawful purposes (including defense), Texas authorizes the carry of defensive arms. Here in Chicago, handguns are strictly prohibited ... prohibited from being carried, and even prohibited from possessing in homes.
Wanna try again?
What does banning guns have to do with criminals' use of them? We've banned marijuana, and _that_ didn't do any good.
If you want fewer handgun murders, the only reliable way to achieve it is to give murderers an incentive by greatly reducing the penalty against people who commit murder without using a handgun.
Besides, murder is not our biggest concern. Most of us are more likely to be threatened by rape or robbery, and outlawing handguns will only make it harder for us to make robbers and rapists share the risk of death when we resist.
Yes, the question is who was killed. 99% of those 102 handgun killings are scumbags. Really who cares. But Pete, if your so concerned about the safety and welfare of people why not start your tirade on abortion. In Texas there for 2007 you had 81079 children killed that were unable to even defend themselves. That put the Texas murder rate of children at 6756 per month, 1351.32 per week, or 193.04 human being killed everyday. Why are you not advocating the closing of these killing clinics if you are concerned for life. By the way handguns save lives too. Visit keepandbeararms.com to see the stories for yourself. Guns are good. When was the last time you read about an abortion clinic saving lives?
One wonders why the author of this piece would desire to see a 110 lb secretary working late at night completely vunerable to the 250 lb rapist who doesn't "need" a gun to do his evil deed.
http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public
I have never understood the psyche of those who think that banning guns will accomplish a reduced criminal element.
It is not logical to think that someone who is a criminal, someone who is already disobeying the law, would simply decide to obey this one law (if it was a law), when it would actually be to their best interest to carry a gun to better usurp their criminal ways over the innocent law abiding citizen who would be defenseless against such an attack.
No, the only logical way to protect the innocent from the criminal element is to allow them to arm themselves and defend themselves as they see fit. This leaves the criminal in a quandary as they must ascertain in their minds, is this citizen able to defend themselves if I attack? Leaving only the most desperate of criminals to take the chance.
The more people that take up arms and defend themselves the less criminal acts there will be perpetuated towards the innocent. Because criminals will be too afraid to risk their lives for a few bucks or whatever the intended booty may be.
Post a Comment