Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
 And ask themselves the question:
"Does the benefits of people being able to own this type of weapon outweigh the negative consequences of freer access to these weapons to the mentally unstable and/or criminals?" |
You want to argue freer access to weapons? Washington DC has banned firearms since 1976, and their crime rate is 8x the national average, while other states that allow CCW have very low crime rates?
Why are countries like Norway and Switzerland, both that have VERY high rates of firearm ownership, similar to the US actually....considered such peaceful countries?
Why is the homicide rate in Canada now DOUBLE what it was back (pre-1963) when persons with a clean criminal and psychiatric record could legally acquire nearly anything, including machine guns?
A recent study by Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000 to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and self defense homicides. That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody. As accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is about 700-800 to 1.
Quote:
|
But your argument doesn't look at each weapon individually. It says weapons, no matter how deadly and dangerous, should be free from gun control laws because criminals can get their hands on them so so should law abiding citizens. I think that is a very, very dangerous position to take.
|
Again, studies have shown that criminals usually get their hands on weapons through illegal sources. There is no way any LAW would stop that.