Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Poppinjay
Temperance failed because, well, it wasn't temperance. It was the government trying to cut off an addictive supply. That is a very unwise thing to do.
I'm a fan of rifles and shotguns. I hunted, fished, etc. I no longer own any, but they're fine by me. However, I agree with posters who advocate abolishing handguns.
As far as the DC murder rate goes, it's in a ten year decline, and nowhere near what it was 20 years ago.
|
In 1982, the DC murder rate was 26/100,000 with a total pop. of 631,000
in 1986, the DC murder rate was 31/100,000 with a total pop. of 626,000
In 1992, the DC murder rate was 75/100,000 with a total pop. of 589,000
In 96, the DC murder rate was 73.1/100,000 with a total pop. of 543,000
In 2002, the DC murder rate was 45.8/100,000 with a total pop. of 571,000
In 2004, the DC murder rate was 35.8/100,000 with a total pop. of 553,523
So yes, you are in a 10 year decline but how do you prove that this is a result of gun control and not some other factor? could it be the declining population? If ONLY the murder rate was going down, I could find some agreement that gun control was the factor, but I see ALL crime going down so I have to believe that there is another major determining factor instead of gun control.