You mean loading their posts with blatant political posturing and sarcasm, don’t you?
As to increasing gun ownership… I’d cut back welfare, health care and work on destroying the economy. I’d increase the amount of violence seen on TV, particularly against women, the elderly etc. I’d pursue a hard line, prohibitive drugs policy. People would lose their jobs, violent crime would skyrocket and people would turn to guns as a means to protect themselves. Seeing more violence on TV would elevate peoples fear. Gun laws would be relaxed upon increased pressure by the populace responding to the situation.
Give people tax breaks based on the number of guns possessed.
Make state sales tax on guns and ammunition illegal.
Give federal grants to gun and ammunition factories.
Instigate free trade areas with other gun-producing nations, dropping all import tariffs.
Pass a law requiring all citizens to carry a gun. Failure to comply results in a fine.
And give nationwide publicity when the gun requirement is followed by a big drop in the crime rate.
Or Chicago, or Detroit, or L.A. . . . The list goes on. At least for handguns. Long guns are certainly more easy to obtain.
I was able to buy a handgun relatively easily in San Jose, California a few years ago. (San Jose is in the south part of the San Francisco bay area, in what is popularly known as the Silicon Valley.) True, there was a waiting period, and I did have to pass a ridiculously easy written test on basic firearms safety (since I didn’t already have a hunting license), but it was easier than, say, buying a new car.
I am now the proud owner of a .357 magnum revolver with a 4-inch barrel and a 7-chamber cylinder. (The 7-round capacity eliminates the need to ask yourself “Did he fire six shots, or only five?”, punk.) It’s a beautiful piece of engineering. I’m kinda sorry Smith and Wesson have drawn so much flak from gun owners in recent years, 'cause that make damn fine revolvers.
Er, they make, not “that make”.
This is interesting, december. What were the actual numbers of incidents, and what were the specific crime categories in Kennesaw, GA in 1981, 1982 and 1983? Because, as you know, it would really be foolhardy to draw conclusions about causation based on a city of 5,000 in relatively rural Georgia in the early 1980’s. After a bit of searching for numbers, I couldn’t find too much. Their 2000 stats don’t seem very impressive, compared to my city, and we are not required to carry a weapon here.
As for my view, I would prefer to see massive restrictions of gun rights in this country. I am honestly open to being convinced otherwise if evidence were available that suggested that gun possession would prevent crime, but apart from one suspect study by Gary Kleck, most findings suggest the opposite is true.
S&W is back in the fold, so to speak, after their Brit owners sold it to a US manufacturer. Their deal with the feds has been rescinded by the new owners, and the S&W name has regained its luster.
Exactly what percentage of a decrease over what period of time would be needed? The violent crime rate, especially the homicide rate, has been dropping since 1991, so I’m unclear as to why you’d think that a drop in crime rates would cause the gun-control crowd to change their minds.
That is a good point. I guess a lot has to do with perceived rather than real risk. As long as our media plays up the fear factor in reporting the news, then the perception will lag the reality, and the perceived need for self-defense will persist. To answer more directly, I’d guess down to the level of a Canada. And persistent for five or more years. BTW, it went back up some this last year.
Don’t some of the Canadian hate-speech laws make it a crime to say bad things about someone because of their sexual preferences, including fetishes?