How can you utter that sentence and simultaneously not understand why your bill is effectively worthless for its stated purpose?
Not to say that I'd approve this farce.
Either way you meant it, that is your individual belief based upon your own preferences, and there are literally millions of people who would disagree with you on this particular point. If there were no exceptions, where would all those dissenters go?
I hear hand guns in particular are quite accident prone. Even if there's less crime, we might still have more deaths.
PS: I have actually been paid to look into crime statistics. Guns are bad, really really bad. But, you can twist statistics to say the sky is orange if you want to.
He came into it with a bias but still ended up with the opposite book from his intentions, due to honest research.
Not even close to factual.
You think legislators do not understand the subject because of what they said?
You believe what the politicians say?
Depends. Frequently not as can be seen when the policy to achieve "x" does nothing of the sort, loses them the election or becomes some sort of personal vanity thing. Of course it depends on if the views expressed are of the politician or the party after you've attempted to pick out the double meaning. :)
> You believe what the politicians say?
If it's an independent I might. A party politician of any colour, usually not.
This is more akin to knife control.
I would prefer to see lock analogies. Here's a half baked example: This is like a law requiring all builders of buildings to install locks that can be opened by any person who gets access to a copy of a law enforcement key.
Of course the knife analogy is still useful. We all know the futility of outlawing software.
> Just look at gun control arguments
> to see why people think outlawing
> activity will stop criminals.
>The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported
>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence.
One of the only 'wins' seems to be that people who committed suicide were less likely to use guns, but more likely to use other methods.
>As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.
>Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
Pious idolization of the State.