Consider this hypothetical scenario:
If the example of Washington D.C. showed a decrease in violent crime instead of an increas - gun-control advocates would be exclaiming that this is definite proof of the effecacy of gun-control - and the example would probably be implimented in many more cities.
Do you think, in such a case, a gun-owner could get away with saying, "Washington D.C. is different than SF - that's why it won't work here."?
Heck no. They'd be immediately be branded as a self-serving, unrealistic lunatic.
In these politically-correct times the same can't be said when the opposite is true.
|