Banning guns has intended effect

In reading the Friday letter, “Banning guns has opposite effect,” we once again see the effect of propaganda. The writer gets his facts from the NRA (which has an agenda) and an old viral email. He should have consulted the Australian Institute of Criminology and Australian Bureau of Statistics, both government agencies which have no agenda.

In 1996, the first law was passed only in regard to semi-automatic and pump action weapons. In 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of homicides, by 2007 that had dropped to 11 percent. There was a slight increase peaking in 1999, but now is reduced by more than half. In 1995, firearms were used in 27.8 percent of armed robberies, by 2000, 14.0 percent.

As far as the example of the stabbing, consider this: How many people could he have killed if he had a gun?

Consider also the four police officers who were gunned down while getting their morning coffee in King County not so long ago. They were trained professionals who were all armed, yet they all died.

I’m not so sure about totally banning guns, but shouldn’t we do something to keep guns away from crazy people?

Tom Griffin