Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
I don't even think gun control proponents believe they prevent violence. More likely they are trying to limit as many places as possible where people can carry their guns. It's about controlling "who" has the guns, not whether or not guns should be allowed. Consider that school cops have guns, even though schools are gun free zones. Gun control proponents also never complain about the politicians having armed guards.Having an armed populace presents a viable threat to certain policies they would probably attempt if they didn't fear rebellion. So ordinary people must be disarmed first before those policies can be implemented. It really is that simple.
I don't know, I'd like to see some added empirical evidence. I've always thought that less gun control would be best, but I have to be intellectually honest. America, in 2014 alone, had 337 cases of mass shootings. I don't think all cases would have gun-free zones implemented. Plus, what about one on one homicides? I'm sure that rate would be higher here too, correct? And those definitely happen anywhere, since the goal is one person. But hey, I'm slightly playing the devil's advocate here.
Post a Comment