The logic of gun control... Or lack thereof, Part IV.

This is the fourth and final part of a series of takes examining the gun control movement in the United states, you can find Part III here. I highly encourage reading all parts in order for context purposes. I ended up with a grand total of 13 links for this part, but apparently there is now a 10 link limit, some links will be posted in a comment below and such links will be notarized.

CRIME

The logic of gun control... Or lack thereof, Part IV.

About the only thing we haven't touched upon in this series as of yet is crime. Gun control is supposed to be about preventing crime, or at least that's what the movement's leaders insist it's about, preventing crime to save lives or some such sales pitch. This is yet another area where the stats are not on the anti-gun side.

The United states has the most gun related murders of first-world countries, this is true and nobody denies it, it's also a favorite fact of anti-gun groups and individuals to use to push their agenda. But like with every other anti-gun "fact", just a little digging below the surface reveals major caveats. One of the most important details to consider is that crime in the United States is lowest where gun ownership is highest. I've never seen anybody deny that a lot more people who live in rural and suburban areas own guns than those who live in urban areas, but I've also never seen anybody deny that urban areas are where crime is the most rampant. How can firearms be the problem if crime is less common in places more people have them?

Tying into that last point, Washington DC, New York City and Chicago would have to be some of the safest places in the country if gun control worked, but they're not, they're some of the most dangerous places in the country concerning crime. The only somewhat plausible explanation I've heard for this is that the criminals go to the places with "lax" gun laws to get their guns, criminals in Chicago go to Indiana for example. The problem with this "explanation" is, while it is not out of the wrelm of possibility, it raises the question of why does Indiana, or any other nearby juristicion with "lax" gun laws not share the high crime rate? Are there just fewer criminals? Why don't the criminals just move to the places with lax gun laws? There is also this study from 1997 that shows very few criminals get their firearms from gun shows, as anti-gunners suggest is a common practice.

As far as murder rates with a firearm go, the ten states you're MOST likely to be shot dead are Washington DC (yes I know DC isn't a state, but it has far and away the highest firearm murder rate in the United States at 16.5), Louisiana, Missouri, Maryland, South Carolina, Michigan, Delaware, Missisippi, Florida and Georgia.

Likewise the ten states you're LEAST likely to be shot are Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, North Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Oregon. All of these states sport firearm muder rates of less than 1 per 100,000.

As a side note, California has a firearm murder rate of 3.4, Texas is 3.2, New York and Connecticut are 2.7, Ohio and Kentucky are also 2.7.

As you can see, that stats are all over the map, with some known anti-gun states being high on the list accompanied by many pro-gun states, likewise for being low on the list.

Crime of all kinds is at near-historic lows in the United States, The crime rate is half of what was in 1993 and is around the level it was in the 1960s. Now, if you're part of the 56% of Americans who think crime is up, please read this and this. in fact the only place where crime seems to be up is in New York (link below).

A common theme among anti-gun activists is when crime is up, they claim it is evidence gun control needs to be tightened and when crime is down, it is proof that gun control works and should be made even tighter to continue the downward trend. Thing is, according to Harvard law School reducing the availablity of firearms will NOT reduce crime.

MISCELLANEOUS

Some other general notes that are worth covering are that Barrack Obama has, for the second time, been given three pinocchio's (link below) by the Washington Post fact-checker on the issue if guns. The first time was on the flase claim that 40% of gun sales happen without a background check.

The anti-gun movement, as I have demonstrated, is extreme, but this new stunt set a new standard. Had a prospective gun buyer gone to a reputible gun shop in the United States and asked about the incidents that were mentioned in this video, the salesman would have offered several suggestions on how to avoid repeating them. Suggestions like don't tell your kids the combination to your gun safe, unload and store a gun if you're not using it, use a gun lock if a safe is unavailable, don't put your purse down if you're carrying your gun in it, etc. This ploy reveals that the goal is to get fewer people to buy guns and to taint their decision making process. I'm not sure if the "customers" are actors or real prospective gun buyers as the anti-gun group that produced the video claim (they're all proven liars, as this series has demonstrated). I'm greatly tempted to believe they're actors since you'd have to know NOTHING about guns to not be able to tell that revolver is a .45 Long Colt, not a .22 and to keep your finger on the trigger. This incident also highlights the double standard in which laws are applied to anti-gun groups versus pro-gun groups, in New York state as well as New York City, many of the guns depicted in that video are outlawed, even replicas of such firearms, yet they were allowed conduct they're business. Yet when a successful businessman has a spent shotgun shell he is arrested and put on trial.

Remember the "gun restraining orders" from earlier in the series? Here they are at work.

Alan Gottlieb challenged both Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg to a tow-on-one debate on gun control (link below). Of course both turned down the offer, had they accepted the gun control movement would have been all but destroyed.

There is more to tell, more examples of injustice, harrassment, double standards, criminalization, demonization, lies and insults, but honestly I can't do it anymore, this topic is so ridiculously frustrating it gives me fits. Debating gun control from the pro-gun side is litterally like arguing with a 5 year old, they have no idea what they're talking about and simply deny, without explanation, any inconvenient truths.

On the bright side, even with the severe disadvantages the pro-gun movement faces, we're winning. We're winning and we're getting stronger, and there is no sign of that changing anytime soon. Fewer and fewer people are believing the lies of the gun control movement and more are finding themselves interested in preserving and even expanding gun rights. Big things are on the horizon, national recprocity, NFA reform, elimination of gun-free zones, these are all steps in the right direction to a more peaceful, more pleasant United States, where criminals and psychopaths have few options to carry out their evil intentions, now if we could only get a District Attorney who would prosecute criminals instead of releasing them by the tens of thousands we'd be in a near utopia.

CONCLUSION

Lastly, and this is quite possibly the most important thing to remember... Don't think these laws are of little to no concern to you just because you don't own an AR-15. Gun restraining orders affect every gun owner, ideas have been suggested and even introduced as legislation to require million-dollar liability insurance policies just to own a gun (ANY gun). Recently an attempt was made to ban the most popular target ammo for the AR-15 (M855 ball ammo) because it can pierce soft body armor, guess what, you're old 30-30 will pierce soft body armor like a hot knife through butter. Several Democrat lawmakers have written and submitted legislation that will ban ANY ammuntion that can pierce soft body armor, that means ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMUNITION AND SHOTGUN SLUGS. It doesn't matter if that bill has no chance of passing this Congress, a future Congress can take it up. But that's not all, maybe you have an old 1911 Government model, it might not even be functional and is in a display case, or perhaps you only have a couple bolt or lever-action hunting rifles, maybe you live in a very remote area where police response times are measured in hours and so you have a pump-action shotgun or handgun for home defense, maybe you do cowboy action shooting and your collection is nothing but old style cowboy guns, maybe you just have that Ruger 10-22 to plink cans off your fence with, it doesn't matter, if you own guns you are a target of these extremists. Maybe they're not going after your Remington 700 or Winchester 1873 today, but you can bet your life once they get the "assault weapons" they'll be back for yours. Why do I say this? Two reasons. 1. at least one gun control group can find a reason to restrict any firearm, the Brady Campaign for example considers any firearm with a scope attached to it to be a "sniper weapon" the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence wants to ban all handguns and yes, that includes your single-action .22 revolver and historic 1911, the Violence Policy Center doesn't want any "plastic guns" on the market, so if you own a firearm with a polymer frame they want it confistacted from you. Your dad or granddad's old M1 Garand? An assault weapon because of its flash hider and bayonet lug. 2. if what is popular today is banned, the next best thing will become tomorrow's go-to weapon. If the AR-15 is the best firearm to commit mass murder (a questionable claim, but irrelevent at this point in time) and it is banned, the psychopaths are still out there and they will use whatever they can get, personally if I wanted to kill a lot of people at close range I'd choose a shotgun, so that Mossberg 500 you shoot skeet or go duck hunting with is next on the list, then after that somebody will park themselves on a hill or roof 200 yards away from a school at dismissal time and pick off kids one at a time, might even get away before police can A, respond and B, figure out where he is, well, now they're after your Browning X-Bolt... This is hypothetical of course, but it illustrates my point. ALL gun owners are victims to these radical groups or soon will be if they're allowed to take any ground, if you're not in the fight, get in it and fast, your rights and freedom, as well as our very identity as a nation depend on it.

If you've been reading from the beginning, I thank you, leave a comment, praise, criticism, especially if you disagree with me. My goal here was to clear some of the haize and I'm always looking to help people understand the issue so we can have an informed population and informed voters.


0|0
1|3

Join the discussion

0/2500

Submit

What Girls Said 1

What Guys Said 3

  • We've battled on this before, but credit where it's do, this seems very well researched. I'm anti-gun in the sense of I wish guns were never invented because we shouldn't as humans be walking around with tools making it easier to kill each other. But I also don't agree with people being expected to follow any type of rule or law they didn't personally create, so I'm all over the map with crazy ideas. I really don't care what anyone else chooses to follow or not follow, all I know is I didn't sign up and agree to anything, so I live by my own moral compass and that's it.

    Here's one thing I was thinking of though: if we have to have laws, is there a law forbidding you from "upping the ante" as far as weaponry goes? That's my big concern. I don't like how guns allow physically soft people to beat those who are superior to them. I saw a question on here about something to the effect of "what would you do if some huge guy wanted to fight you", and some soft-serve dude posted a picture of some kind of gun and was basically like "bring it on, I can't to shoot you." That right there is EXACTLY the problem I have with guns. If a guy shows up to your house looking for a fistfight, don't be a pussy and hide behind your gun. Men fight with their hands. Your gun should only come out if your adversary has a weapon with deadly force. Like the George Zimmerman case made me sick. You start trouble with a high school kid because you want to play rent-a-cop, said high school kid kicks your ass (which is an absolute embarrassment... I would have turned the gun on myself), and since he's not man enough to handle himself, he goes with a permanent solution to a temporary problem. You shouldn't be allowed to kill someone for beating you up. I don't care who started what, and I don't care if he reached for YOUR gun, it's your own fault for bringing a deadly weapon into the equation.

    I guess that's my question, where is the line drawn? I believe MEN should fight with their bare hands.

    0|0
    0|0
    • *credit where it's due

    • In the case of George Zimmerman, Martin hid in a bush and ambushed Zimmerman as he walked by, the element of surprise is frequently all that is needed to dominate in a fistfight. Zimmerman called out for help three times, all went completely unanswered. Martin wasn't stopping his assault, case law demonstrates that at the point Zimmerman decided to shoot Martin was past the point where a reasonable person would believe their life to be in danger, and so deadly force is justified. Had Martin confronted him face to face rather than attacking from a bush and it got physical I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but that isn't what happened.

      The short answer to your question is case law has come to accept that a criminals life is less valuable than an innocent persons life, and that deadly force is justified when a reasonable person can agree that the situation warranted deadly force.

      You have a right to believe what you wish about manliness, but legally this has been settled.

  • Yes! Guns will solve guns and when there is more gun violence let's add more guns and if that fails to work add more guns and add more guns to schools, campuses and let's have no permit open carry and add more and more and go shopping at Kroger. Slavery was legal 200 years ago and was carrying a weapon. Laws should never change with the times. We should have anyone legally shooting anyone and should have slaves and burn witches and all that fun stuff! Yay for gun murders!!!

    1|1
    1|0
    • Did you even read what I wrote? It has been proven repeatedly that more restrictions on guns will NOT reduce murder rates, in fact it's also been proven that as gun laws are relaxed, murder rates are only going down, why do you so vehemently refuse to accept this? Do you just deny it or are you brainwashed or are you part of the elite class looking to implement a monarchs and peasants type of lifestyle?

    • Show All
    • Yes to feel manly! Not being a kind, giving generous person makes you great it's shooting and knowing you can kill people! Yay!!! He wants me to read slanted articles showing how great guns are yet in 19 states more people die from guns than they do in car accidents. Yay for guns!! Boom boom I am tough!!!

    • Hahahahahaha I see that the take owner was there that night with Martin and Zimmerman. Obviously he is not taking the word of a woman beater and someone that has lied to the police and got arrested 2 or 3 times since this incident :P hahahahahaha

  • "There is no reason why, on the street today, a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Guns are "a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." Ronald Reagan.

    And this was over 30 years ago!

    1|1
    0|0
    • Did he say that before or after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's?

      Well people of good will don't use guns to solve problems with others of good will. But when faced with a person of bad will, a gun is frequently an appropriate response.

      Also, good job with the red herring, not a single piece of substance to refute what I said, just a "hey, look over there!"

    • Show All
    • he's wrong to say we shouldn't allow crazy people and terrorists as many ak 47 as they want?

    • You didn't answer my question.

      There are already laws against terrorists and crazy people from buying guns, you make the mistake of believing that just because this or that regulation isn't in place that there are no regulations at all.

      This is pretty much a required mistake to make to be an anti-gunner, you have no idea what regulations are in place so you listen to people like Shannon Watts or Ladd Everitt or Gabby Giffords talk about all the regulations they want to implement (some of which are already implemented) and you go "holy crap these things have almost no regulations!" Until you educate yourself of gun laws across the country and the enforcement of them, there is no rational discussion to be had on the issue.

Loading...