Obviously, if someone is violent, the presence of a gun will likely result in gun violence.
I think the key here is why are people getting violent in the first place? If a gun isn't there, what else can happen? Beat their kids, beat their wives, etc, etc?
The article to me just suggests the obvious.
What else is obvious is that gun law, gun restrictions or gun registries still don't solve the underlying problem behind 'guns.' Which is that the majority of gun crime is committed using weapons that are impossible to regulate, restrict or prohibit. The article comes from the US, so going from an American perspective, you have a largely unmanned border between the US and Mexico where thousands of firearms are transported across on a daily basis.
After that you have a increasing amount of people who would be considered 'low income' earners, and many of them are being forced to turn to crime to try and make ends meet. Which means an increasing number of people who are likely to use a gun to commit violence or a criminal act.
I could go on and on about numerous issues that this that are a lot more serious, and create a LOT more gun crime than having a gun in a home.
Fact STILL is, and always WILL be, responsible gun owners are not the problem. Responsible gun owners are smart about the storage of weapons, the storage of ammo, have the presence of mind to teach their children how to safely use a firearm, and educate themselves on the basics, or perhaps even advanced techniques involving firearms.
If all of that is lacking, accidents, or perhaps even gun violence is likely to happen.
Still doesn't change the fact that no amount of legislation will stop criminals from obtaining firearms and using them in a violent act.
The 'war on guns' is very similar to the 'war on drugs.' Pointless, because the underlying problem still exists and isn't even attempted to be solved.
|