The Guns Of Britan
Michael C. Moynihan posted this over at Reason:
"Following the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, in which seventeen people were killed by a man armed with two 9mm pistols, Britain passed a law outlawing the ownership of most handguns, despite researchers finding "no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession." It's a law so severe that the Britain's Olympic shooting team is forced to train abroad, lest one of its members try to shoot up a grammar school. So how effective has the law been? A doubling in gun-related crimes since the ban, naturally."
Naturally. Isn't it simply amazing how well intentioned laws passed in the heat of the moment often end up bring about exactly the opposite of the intended effect? You can not legislate people's actions, even if you are motivated by the best of intentions.
CWCID: Instapundit
3 comments:
i have noticed that the places where they in force the guns, where you have to own a gun and even have to use if it need be, have a lot less problems as far as murders, rapes, and so on!
Sweetheart,
I'm glad you noticed. You have to admit that the old trope from the NRA "Guns don't kill people - people kill people" holds up pretty well. And besides, if all of those who would like to take away our Second Amendment rights got their way, people would just resort to other means. You, of all people, know that - just read about Cain and Abel in the good book. If murder is in your heart, you don't need a gun.
But the real point of the post is that if you take away guns from law-abiding citizens then the only people who will have guns are the criminals. And while the laws Britain enacted were well meaning, as is often the case in these situations, they had exactly the opposite effect.
Amen, me and my husband strongly agree... but I fear our country is not too far from Britain's way of doing things!
Post a Comment