Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatty
The laws, in and of themselves, only represent half of the problem. Legislative bodies can come up with whatever laws they want but as long as the power and capacity to enforce those laws is not on hand then they exist only on paper. The power of enforcement is obviously nonexistent in these areas of Mexico, as it seems they're staring down nothing less than an armed insurgency.
Not saying that your ideas on gun control are wrong, but this is not an effective case study. Show me a case where both gun control laws and the capacity to enforce said laws are strong, yet gun violence is also heavy, and you would have a point.
|
Other than the U.S.? Okay, how about Russia, China, and a host of totalitarian states (esp. in Africa) that effectively govern their nations with what amounts to martial law? They all have the laws and the capacity to enforce them, and gun violence remains unchecked. How about Iraq? A a antion under military control that still manages to get military-grade weapons?
I, personally, could easily obtain an M240 machine gun and ammunition for it and go on a killing spree. I have access to a reserve armory. But I don't do that because I'm not militant and I have a good job, so there is no reason for me to be a criminal.
For my case, I present Switzerland. A nation with fairly relaxed gun-control and a healthy economy. Many citizens there are required to own guns as part of their militia obligations. They also have a very healthy economy due to their free-trade practices. Yet, Switzerland has one of the lowest gun-violence rates per capita in the world.
If nothing else, just ask yourself which you would prefer if you were a common criminal; an armed victim, or an unarmed one?