Age Spots Cause
Question by : Would gun control laws be as ineffective as drug control laws?
Think, marihuana and cocaine are illegal but are extremely easy to obtain by anyone so wanting them. And, society pays dearly in blood by them being illegal.
The atrocity committed in Arizona, by Loughner has predictably generated calls for new gun-control laws in the U.S.
Some want bans on the extended-capacity ammunition clips. Others want improved background screening.
Would these or other laws prevent incidents like the Arizona shooting? Probably not. And such laws, along with existing gun controls, not only harm responsible gun owners but may even increase violence as does drug control.
Gun control laws basically permit legal gun ownership for most people in most instances, while imposing modest costs on legitimate gun owners. Examples include criminal-background checks, waiting periods to purchase a gun, minimum purchase ages, and the such.
These laws, did not deter Loughner, who had contemplated and planned his attack for a long time. The reason is simple: These laws are readily circumvented.
Yes there are loopholes for lunatics
Consider, a ban on extended-capacity ammunition clips. If these had been unavailable, Loughner could still have carried out his attack with a 10-bullet clip [ it takes about 1/2 second to reload a clip ], and he might have aimed more carefully knowing he had less ammunition. Loughner could have brought several guns, allowing him to continue firing without interruption. Loughner could have bought a black- market clip.
Gun controls like those being proposed in all likelihood would NOT prevent psychotics on a mission.
But gun controls, do have adverse consequences. They evolve into strict limits on guns, bordering on outright prohibition. No evidence is available that gun controls lower violence: In fact the first year Australia imposed gun controls there was a 40% increase in criminal gun related actions.[see effects of gun control in Australia]
Strict controls and prohibition, moreover, wouldn’t eliminate guns any more than drug prohibition stops drug trafficking and use. Thus the classic slogan — when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns — isn’t only a word play; it is a fundamental insight into the folly of gun prohibition. Such an approach means the bad guys are well-armed while law-abiding citizens are not. .
BUT…!!
Beyond being ineffective, gun prohibition would very likely even increase violence by creating a large black market in guns. So if gun laws follow the path of drug laws, we can expect more violence under gun prohibition than in a society with limited or no controls. The sad reality is that every society has a few people whose mental instabilities cause serious harm to others. This is tragic, but it doesn’t justify ineffective and possibly counter- productive attempts to prevent such harm. In reality had Loughner smashed the congresswoman’s head with a baseball bat….she would have been dead on the spot, pieces of skull..and brain scattered beside her lifeless body.
So?……Should we control baseball bats?
A psychotic person on a mission to kill someone does not even need a gun..!
A baseball bat,hammer,straight razor,dagger,scissors,…heck even a 2 by 4…would do the job.
Best answer:
Answer by Chase Cog
Yes because Gun control laws cant take any gun away from any one unless the gun was illegal in the first place.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Suggested Products for:Age Spots Cause
La RochePosay MelaD Dark Spots SPF 15
Do dark, unseemly spots leave you feeling uncomfortable and down? La RochePosay MelaD Dark Spots SPF 15 is designed to take on and tackle dark spots of sun damage and hyperpigmentation while improving your overall skin tone. Moisturizers and sun protectants will keep skin safe from future damage….
List Price:
Price: 49.95
Related Topics
Tags: control, drug, ineffective, laws, would
Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on record. Americans have gone to prison in Mexico just for having a couple of bullets in their car when crossing the border.
With about 25,000 drug murders in Mexico just last year how would you say their gun laws are working.
Mexico is more dangerous than Iraq. You would probably be safer booking your next vacation in Baghdad, they have a lower murder rate.
If we had gun control laws, the Tuscon shooter couldn’t have fired off 31 rounds before he had to reload.
You don’t need a 31 round magazine to protect your home.
JOE: Mexican Drug Cartels get all their guns from places like Texas.
If a nut job is going to commit murder is he really going to worry about the gun law they might break while killing someone?
Yes. I don’t know why libs think it will be different. They’re control laws would be a worse failure than The War on Drugs, and you know how much they like to bash that because it was a Reagan thing.
Gun control carried too far is more dangerous than the alternative by far.
Take a look
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p%20r=goog-sl#
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
Yes they would. In fact, considering how readily available drugs are, it is conceivable that if guns were to, say, be outlawed, they would become ever MORE available than they are now. the psychos, nut jobs, gangstas, and thugs would still be able to obtain them. Just look at how well the assault weapons ban worked in places like South Central Los Angeles. Even IF they try to ban extended-capacity clips, it doesn’t mean they will go away. it just means they will be more expensive. gun control laws do nothing but punish law abiding citizens for the actions of a minority group of people.
A person on a mission will use whatever tools are available to them. Just look at the Manson family murders. One of the weapons used was a regular fork from the kitchen. Should we have put a ban on forks?