My response to ""more guns less crime""

This blog post responds specifically to this article www.thetrenches.us/2012/12/the-moral-case-for-less-gun-control/

as a liberal who bases my arguments on facts I have many issues with it—

1) govt is established to PROTECT our inalienable rights—not take them away—the Founders just threw out a king and set up a new government---they didn’t want to create a govt that could create more kings or collect power in any one branch—so they made 3 branches that check and balance (and today can blame each other)

2) the idea that a gun in the home would protect you against burglars---now two issues right here

            1) 5 crimes (at least in NYS) can be stopped with deadly force—murder, manslaughter, sodomy, rape and robbery (robbery is theft with a weapon used)

            2) the example used in your article---states that the burglars then break into another house and steal their guns—so either they were not home, the guns were not properly locked up and having guns didn’t stop the burglary

Then there’s this “”A microscopic fraction of high-capacity weapons are used in crimes. So high-cap mags must be banned? But, I thought they loved democracy? Wouldn’t that be “majority rule”, rather than tyranny of the minority?””

Here is my answer to this—there are thousands of gun deaths every year—I’ve heard different numbers from 10,000 to 30,000—most are handguns and include suicides, accidents, street gang crime and murders between family members—mass murders account for less than 100 deaths in most years—2012 had 120

So if majority ruled we would outlaw handguns—which no one is doing—partly because mass shootings get more media attention, partly because of race—most killed are young black//latino men killed by young black//latino men and because any gun has to have at least one bullet and one bullet can still kill one person (which is why I’m strongly in favor of civilian limits on ammo capacity)

Then there’s this as well---“”The point is this: top down policies never solve highly individualized problems. This is why I advocate federalism. Localized rule.  The government closest to individual citizens can best respond to individual issues. And they usually have more reverence for Natural Law.””

There has to be a balance of States’ Rights and Fed govt---end of sentence--- they have different roles and both make general rules of safety—Fed deals with other nations and interstate issues.

And then your argument about Hitler Cambodia etc as I’ve heard everywhere recently---here is a fact check from 2009---these comparisons that gun control was the ONLY factor in leading to mass murder leaves out many factors that lead to these genocides

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/