The state of Massachusetts has perhaps the strictest laws limiting ownership and access to guns and yet the crime rate that includes the use of guns in those crimes has risen and continues to rise despite the national average. This spike in gun-related crimes began at the exact same time as the Bay State passed the very strict gun control laws. Now the state blames the spike on surrounding states that don’t have the same gun laws, allowing Massachusetts people to go to a neighbor state and buy their guns and return to commit the crimes. Consider the insanity in this illogical thinking.
Gun control fascists, like Boston Mayor Tom Menino, would argue that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would have some kind of trickle down affect on criminals so that they can’t get guns to commit their crimes, thus, the argument goes, making us all safer. Now follow along here, if you will, because my explanation gets a bit tricky.
With this kind of thinking prowess, doesn’t one have to assume that if lawful people just stopped buying guns….period…..then crimes with guns would disappear? For anyone to believe that taking guns away from one class of people, whose ownership has nothing to do with gun crimes and violence, will make us safer by reducing violent crimes with guns, then that same person must believe that the only major source for guns for the criminals in Massachusetts comes from people who legally own a gun. That’s their logic not mine.
Authorities in Massachusetts now say the explanation for the INCREASE in gun-related crimes is because Massachusetts residents can go to another state and bring guns back home. Or are they now suggesting that only criminals, where they wouldn’t before, will now go across state lines to get their guns? Think about this exercise in cranial activity. First, crime and public safety is thought to be in danger in Massachusetts because law-abiding citizens can own a gun. This implies, by their own methods of rationalization, that criminals only get their guns from lawful citizens. So, the state takes away or seriously reduces a citizen’s right to own a gun believing it will help and the crooks stop committing crimes.
One report states that prior to 1998 when Massachusetts implemented its real strict laws, there were 1.5 million active gun license holders. By 2002, that number had dropped to 200,000. From this statistic can we conclude that one of two things, and/or a combination of both, has occurred? One, that there really are a lot fewer guns in Massachusetts, or, two, there’s fewer guns and a lot more criminals by virtue of people deciding not to license their guns. Either way, one should be able to conclude that there are fewer guns in the state of Massachusetts and by the flawed logic of authorities in that state, there should be a whole lot less crimes committed by crooks because their supply of guns has been dried up.
Even if a person was brainwashed, or brain dead, enough to swallow the explanation that gun violence has risen because of less strict gun laws in neighboring states, wouldn’t it also make sense that, again by using their own logic, fewer guns in the hands of lawful citizens equals fewer gun-related crimes.
There’s probably a technological term used to describe this kind of thinking but somewhere in here I can see a bit of wanting to have it both ways combined with a failure to accept the facts of what really is happening.
Evidently, the criminals have been forced to go out of state to get their guns and the increase in crime has nothing to do with the fact the crooks know fewer guns in hands of law-abiding citizens means easier targets.
