A Quote by Chris Murphy

There's zero evidence, empirical or anecdotal, that more guns leads to less gun crime. — © Chris Murphy
There's zero evidence, empirical or anecdotal, that more guns leads to less gun crime.
Gun control advocates used to claim that more guns meant more crime. Research demonstrated, though, that more guns meant less crime. As the criminology argument faded, gun control advocates began arguing guns were a public health problem.
Crime is actually less in places where people own guns. Washington, D.C., is a case in point. It has the strictest gun laws, but who has the highest crime rate in the country? Washington, D.C.
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.
There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at All.
We know that the crime committed by people with guns by criminals, they get the guns by flouting the law to begin with. They don't go to gun shows.
As gun owners, my husband and I understand that the Second Amendment is most at risk when a criminal or deranged person commits a gun crime. These acts only embolden those who oppose gun ownership. Promoting responsible gun laws protects the Second Amendment and reduces lives lost from guns.
It's a wonderful story for the gun lobby to tell that if you just load up schools with weapons, you'll be safer. All of the evidence suggests that homes and communities that have more weapons have more gun crimes, not less.
I've been among their critics [MBA programs]. Much of what I've seen in business schools is quite non-rigorous. Anecdotal histories are stretched to illustrate favored slogans. Evidence of their effectiveness is similarly anecdotal.
Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.
There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend.
The freedom-hating gun-grabbers do not care about reducing crime or saving lives, or they wouldn't be fighting for more gun-free zones where the most innocent lives are always slaughtered. Those squawking the loudest for banning guns from we the people will not get rid of their we-the-people tax-dollar-paid armed security guards.
There's no evidence that I'm aware of that guns reduce crime.
I don't get into the gun stuff. Some guys have guns who go hunting. Where do we stop (the gun control) at? I'm not a hunter, but we can't say people can't have guns.
Knife crime and gun crime is poverty-driven, and poverty leads to insecurity.
Gun owners and non-gun owners alike agree on expanding background checks, making gun trafficking a serious crime with stiff penalties, making it illegal for all stalkers and all domestic abusers to buy guns, and expanding mental health resources so the mentally ill find it easier to receive treatment than to buy firearms.
I’m not a gun owner and, as I think as is the case for the more than half the people in the country who also aren’t gun owners, that means that for me guns are alien. In the current rhetorical climate people seem not to want to say: I think guns are kind of scary and don’t want to be around them.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!