A Great Article Attempting to be Balanced on an Unbalanced Issue.

Have a look!

The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. Gun bans have always had the same effect once implemented: none. They do not create a (sustained) period of increased murders, nor do they reduce the rate of homicides. The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming “No, it reduces violence! I’ve seen the statistics.” What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of “gun murders,” not murder. The pro-gun crowd is screaming that gun bans cause crime. At least this is grounded in reality. Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban, but it is short lived.

I don’t 100% agree with his stats, but they certainly aren’t stats I can argue with directly. I would point out that Australia’s “Short lived” spike in murder also coincided with the people re-arming themselves, and the US’s current slump in violent crime as shooting and gun ownership becomes more popular than ever.

Still if the net result IS zero, why would you NOT want to just leave people alone? I guess that’s the difference between human beings, and authoritarians and “Progressives”….one would consider a ban on something if it would result in a SOLID gain for society as a whole, as well as the individual…the other just hates stuff and wants to ban them, facts be damned!!!

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A Great Article Attempting to be Balanced on an Unbalanced Issue.

  1. McThag says:

    While murder may be level…

    Violent crime soars where guns are removed. Australia is something of a poster child of this effect.

    • Archer says:

      The Place Where Great Britain Used To Be, too.

      Their “violent offence” rate skyrocketed (quadrupled, IIRC) after guns and self-defense were effectively banned.

      When you don’t have to worry about getting shot by defenders, and when the “justice” system will treat the victims who attempt to defend themselves more harshly than the offenders who victimize them, there’s less reason to live a crime-free life (apart from personal morals), and no reason whatsoever to kill the victims and/or witnesses. The murder rate stays low, but violent crime goes WAY up.

      • Jack/OH says:

        Archer, ditto. My impression of Europe the last time I was there is that the pickpockets and panhandlers are more aggressive than here.

        A syndicated writer, Jay Ambrose, may be worth a look. I found his recent essay, “Gun Control Won’t Stop Shootings”, at http://www.eagletribune.com. (I don’t know how to link.) Like most of us, he’s skeptical of those too slick comparisons of murder rates with other countries.

        Much of the U. S. is likely a low murder rate country. We have two large townships near me that have a tiny fraction (less than 1/100,000) of the murder rate of the city they’re directly next to (probably 30/100,000 this year).

        • Archer says:

          Link for future readers: “Gun Control Won’t Stop Shootings”.

          It’s been pointed out many times that the VAST majority of criminal homicides in America — both with AND without guns — occur in a handful of urban areas. If we were to omit a few “murder hot-beds” (in particular, leftist-run, “gun-controlled” towns: Washington, D.C., New York City, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, and L.A., for example), the murder rate for the rest of the nation drops to European levels. Even in those towns most murders are confined to a few well-defined, “known-to-police” neighborhoods.

          So you’re correct: America is generally a low-murder-rate country. We just have a few urban areas with rates so God-awfully high that it makes the rest of us look terrible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *