(August 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:What were the rates before and after the countries in question "took the guns away"
You know, I can't find the phrase "took the guns away" anywhere in that article and I even used the search feature. I'll try again later when I've got more time.
I was paraphrasing the post that you responded to. My apologies if I gave the impression that I was quoting either you or the article you quoted.
(August 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But, somehow I keep getting the hint that you think the Hollywood version of everyone in early America walking around with guns on their hip is accurate. It isn't. Frankly, the Old West was a lot less violent than the New West.
I assure you I am under no such misconceptions. I'm only concerned about what's occurring in our time. Honestly, I can't see why you would think that of me - I've commented on this issue twice that I can recall, in this thread, and in another thread where I took no position on the politics of the issue, but commented only on another poster's ignorance of the particulars of one aspect of U.S. firearm law. For the record, I abhor violence, am appalled by the homicide rate in our country, and would like to see something done about it. What that "something" might be, I am undecided on.
Let me put what I was trying to say in another way. Before I would support any sort of legislation in this regard, I'd like to have a good reason to believe it would be effective - sort of a cost/benefit analysis. That could in part be accomplished by assessing the effectiveness of similar efforts in other countries, by comparing pre- and post- legislation homicide (and other violent crime) rates across the board. You'd also have to account for legitimate self-defensive uses of firearms as well.
Unfortunately, to date, the studies have largely been done by (or sponsored by) organizations with an axe to grind.