Since this has recently become partly an NRA bulletin board, I feel obligated to defend the concept of gun control. The reality is that gun control works by saving lives. The theory is simple. If people don't have access to guns, they have to work alot harder to kill each other. For example, if two equally disgruntled drivers are in a car accident, and they each have guns and suspect that the other does as well, its very easy for a needless firefight to evolve. Essentially, arguments can end in murder alot easier. Without guns, even with knives, murder becomes a far more difficult matter. This theory is borne out in evidence on a massive, massive scale, nationally and internationally. Massachusetts, which has arguably the strictest gun control laws in the country has the second lowest gun death rate per 100,000 people (StateMaster - Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state
). Its also accompanied by other gun control states such as New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The list is topped by Alaska, Wyoming, Louisiana and Arizona, which are not know for their gun control measures. While this could be related to regional cultural differences (South's high murder rate is key factor in why U.S. homicide rate is so high | Jet | Find Articles at BNET
I personally find the evidence fairly compelling.
The argument of a well armed populace as a defense against tyranny is not applicable to the modern world. The days of the Minutemen have passed. For example, even that assault rifle that some of you insist on keeping in your glove compartment just won't be able to stand up against a robotic plane flying thousands of feet above you that you can't even see.
I expect a fair amount of flak for posting this from some boaters who are to my political right, I felt that some light should be shed on the subject in a more objective (evidence based way). I welcome your comments.