Philly ain’t having it
Seems the Philidelphia Inquirer actually presents both sides of the gun issue. Novel idea, eh? Such as this:
One-gun-a-month laws sound attractive to gun-control activists and draw broad public support in polls. But it’s not clear that such statutes have had much impact on gun violence.
A study published last year in the journal Injury Prevention found that the laws restricting purchases had had no measurable impact. The study was done by a team of doctors from the University of Washington, using data from 1979 to 1998.
Another study, done in 2001 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found evidence of a slight decrease in gun violence associated with Maryland’s one-gun law.
With only California, Virginia and Maryland having such laws, there isn’t much evidence to be had. What is available raises questions about the effect of limiting individuals to one handgun purchase every 30 days.
Also, if they can limit it to one per month, why not one per year? Or one per lifetime? The goal, of course, is none ever. And Philly.com also writes:
The gun owners fired back yesterday.
About 300 of them from around Pennsylvania roamed the Capitol encouraging legislators to oppose any new laws limiting the right to own and bear arms.
They were steadfast: crime is Philadelphia’s problem, caused by Philadelphians, and any new laws to restrict the sale of guns won’t solve it.
The only solution, they said, is to crack down on criminals, enforce existing laws, and end what one gun supporter called “Philadelphia’s catch and release program.”
Ayup.
