This is a bit of a random thought but I wanted to put it down. During the run up to the adoption of Maryland's SB281, or the Firearms Safety Act of 2013, I had spent much time working out how to argue against the legislation. Even after the final votes had been cast I continued to work out some ideas I had. I had watched the majority of the 15 hour video that the House had recorded from the session where thousands of Marylanders showed up to voice against the bill. During the argument an individual brought up that Maryland was considered number 1 for violent crime. Someone there then corrected him that Maryland was no longer number 1 but was actually somewhere around number 8 on the list. After hearing that I started mauling over this idea in my discussion. One day I came up with a point that made me think, it's lucky for the gun control complex that Maryland is anti-gun.
The Firearm Safety Act of 2013 put in place numerous restrictions, limits and bans on just about everything related to guns. It put in a mandate to register ALL regulated firearms, limited magazines to 10 rounds, banned around 45 "assault weapons" and their clones and required a "Handgun Qualification License" to purchase or possess a handgun after the effective date (unless you already legally owned one that was registered). I'm not sure which state was the last state to put in handgun licenses but it seemed very odd to me that now, after all these years, a state would now require such a level of regulation on handguns.
It got me thinking that if Maryland WAS number one and now has a much lower violent crime level AND they reduced the crime level WITHOUT the handgun licenses and gun bans etc then why do you need it now? The answer is they don't. However, if Maryland had been a pro-gun state then I think that you could damn well guarantee that the politicians and pro-gunners would be using Maryland as the example of how you can reduce gun violence and violent crime in general without excessive gun control. The reality is that since 1993 violent crime has been reducing in the U.S. but in 10 years anti-gun politicians will likely try to use the new Maryland laws as an example of how you can reduce violent crime when it had nothing to do with it. Its just a thought.
Hi...It's Faye from 1MMAGC. Do you know where they got that cited data from? I've never put much stock in stats because they can be so easily skewed to suit either side. I am curious about what they cited, though. I do know this, there's been no dent in the violence in B'more. They're racking up bodies damn near daily. They seem to be on course to surpass the past year's count. I did see we were #4 for gun control measures and CA is #1. Just curious, does anyone really think that someone with the intention of behaving badly with a gun is going to voluntarily create a paper-trail, let alone a paper-trail WITH fingerprints to their tool of choice? Other than those types, all others are typically the civilized that snap or have never done anything wrong and can pass a BG check (Columbia Mall shooter.) We are governed by subjective idiots. They keep legislating away the rights of the civilized with the foolish hope that it will affect the behavior of the uncivilized. I could go on and on...
ReplyDeleteI agree. I'm not sure about the stats though. I remember looking around and found something about Maryland was actually a little bit higher up on the list than the politician had claimed. A quick search got me this http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mdcrime.htm which says violent crime has been trending down but there are some fluctuations.
ReplyDelete