Gun Control & RKBA

It is nothing of the kind. Your radical simplification does a disservice to both sides of the issue. Let's look at some similar proposals.

Many lives could be saved if speed limits were lowered to 40 mph nationwide. If you oppose that, then you think that driving fast is more important than lives. Many lives could be saved if using a cell phone while driving meant a mandatory ten years in prison and the loss of your driving privileges for life. If you oppose that, then you think that texting is more important than lives. An outright prohibition on alcohol, with severe penalties for any infraction, could save countless lives that are lost every year to alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and diseases. If you oppose prohibition of alcohol, you think that booze is more important than lives.

See how that works?


And 18% were not. That's a lot of guns and drugs taken off the street. Anti-gun guru Michael Bloomberg was a fervent supporter of stop-and-frisk, crediting it with drastically lowering NYC's gun-death rate. So ... if you oppose stop-and-frisk, you think that privacy is more important than lives. Does that sound about right?

BTW, I oppose stop-and-frisk.


How was that statistic derived? How did the researchers determine the strictness of gun laws? Do they consider NY a strict state because of its universal background checks or a lax state because no training is required for the issuance of a concealed-carry permit? Does the "mortality rate" distinguish between suicides and homicides? Between murder and justifiable homicide? How is the strictness of a state's gun laws relevant to murders committed by people who obtained their guns illegally? How does the poverty level in these states correlate with the mortality rates?

You mght want to read this article before you tout those findings:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/


Hyperbole is not your friend.