This morning while perusing the news on the puter, I read headlines declaring that there were 40 homicides in Chicago in January. As I read through the article I read this paragraph:
Police say the homicide rate is a reflection of the city's gang problem
and a proliferation of guns. Chicago has for years tried to cut off the
flow of guns. It has what city officials have called the strictest
handgun ordinance in the U.S. But police officials say more needs to be
done, and that penalties for violating gun laws should be stiffer.
People who read this article will take the Chicago violence and see it in different ways. As the last sentence says, anti-gun folk will think that stiffer gun laws need to be in place. Pro-gun people will look at the statistics and think the opposite. It seems to me that so far all laws have done for Chicago is take the guns away from law-abiding citizens. Only law-abiding people abide by laws. In the meantime, the gangs, who break all sorts of laws, are not concerned with more gun laws. In fact, they can kill at will now.
I do know this, that if I was living in Chicago, I would want to carry a gun for my own protection. It seems obvious to me that those 40 people killed in Chicago in January were not protected by the police who carry guns.
So what would be the biggest deterrent for criminals - more gun laws or the possibility that a person might protect himself and shoot back?