"The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control" - Policy Analysis by the Cato Institute

[Spurholder]

All,

This is a good read - nothing new to us, obviously; still, well-documented and worthy of passing along to the "not so informed."


It is unfortunate that Obama chose to disparage those who disagree with him for their supposed fixation on grubby “politics” and indifference to murder victims. Whether Obama realizes it or not, there are good reasons to be skeptical of gun-control policies. This paper will scrutinize the three most common gun-control ideas that have been put forward in recent years: universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and a ban on assault weapons. These proposals are misguided and will not prevent the crimes that typically prompt officials to make pleas for more gun control. Policymakers can take some steps to incapacitate certain mentally ill persons who are potentially violent. Yet, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that gun laws often cannot stop a person bent on murder. Policymakers should not pretend otherwise.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costs-consequences-gun-control#full

[Averageman]

Thanks, that's a good read.

[TacticalMark]

Thanks for the link, good info to pass along.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Overall that was a pretty good argument.

I did find the focus on hunting to be rather annoying though, as all of us here know that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with shooting deer. I understand that the authors used such references to give the layman a better understanding of the topics, but doing so undermines the core of the 2nd amendment, a safeguard against tyranny, and gives legitimacy to unconstitutional laws such as the sporting clause. We need to have a paradigm shift in the way we argue, making it about a fundamental right to preserve ones liberty rather than the right to shoot trap or go hunting with an AR-15.

[soulezoo]

That was a good read.