Gun Control and Restrictive Infringing Laws

IMHO, Gun Control is always good. When I think of gun control, I think of controlling where a bullet goes, on up to the highest meaning. But many people mean not gun control but legislative gun restrictions. That’s different, and that’s what the rest of this post is about. In as much as restrictions = infringement, that would not be constitutional.

Second observation – there’s no correlation between states with restrictive infringing laws, and lack of gun usage. For example, Connecticut (recent school shooting) has some of the tighter rules. In most studies, correlations between legal gun ownership rates and criminal rates of gun use is actually inverted. Therefore one can conclude that it’s socially responsible to promote legal gun ownership. If it has a measurable and substantial effect, it is the right thing to do.

Third observation – law abiding citizens follow laws. Criminals by definition do not. Therefore, only law abiding citizens will follow restrictive infringing laws.

Fourth observation – When looking for the effect of certain laws, be sure to not neglect everything else going on in society. Here’s an analogy of what my fourth point is: teaching a different curriculum to students can kill them (but it would be hugely misleading to not state that I also started feeding them poison).

Fifth observation – if we’re going to write laws restricting or infringing on would-be assault weapon owners, we need to do a WHOLE lot better defining what assault weapons are, compared to what was done last time.

Sixth observation – if someone believes restrictive infringing gun laws have “measurable and significant” effect at reducing deaths, then why go for the small potatoes? Because vehicular death rate is much higher than gun deaths, a much more significant social improvement would result from restrictive infringing car purchase laws.

About Brian

Engineer. Aviator. Educator. Scientist.
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply