Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
|
Where exactly is it contradictory ? Or are we back to the 'either 100% or nothing' argument here ? Apart from the guns being taken out of circulation being a significant number* it also set a tone. And as Groundhog mentions and has been shown fairly conclusively for a lot of different regions (including within the US): Bureaucracy and other hurdles are a very effective tool in reducing gun deaths and everything reducing visibility and common-placenes (yeah, sorry  ) is a good thing.
There's actually a ton of guns owned in Germany as well, but it isn't made out to be essentially a kitchen knive that goes bang.
*And without having the time to dig into the numbers it would be interesting to see how that correlates to "percentage of gun owning households" as well as "percentage of 'active' guns" (as opposed to those untold hundreds of thousands gathering dust in an attic or cellar) as well as location. My first instinct would be for example that a lot more people in cities and households with children would have handed in their guns (relatively speaking) and a large number of the 80% remained in a comparatively smaller percentage of households, meaning the 20% reduced the households with a gun by a larger percentage than 20.
Again, purely speculation.
__________________
“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!”
|