Saturday, May 29, 2010

More Guns Makes For Less Crime

From my latest NRA-ILA newsletter:

"Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn't waned on Capitol Hill, that anti-gunners are -- as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it last year -- only waiting to "pick the time," should watch the video of Mexican president Felipe Calderon's speech to Congress last week, versions of which have been posted on When Calderon asked that the federal "assault weapon" ban be re-imposed, a very large number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing ovation.

However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low."

I would further add that murder typically increases dramatically when the economic conditions decline. The fact that the opposite has occurred would further add to the argument for guns. I guess the fear of Obama's back door workings, particularly with international and UN agencies, to restrict guns in America have hastened U.S. Citizens to exercise their second amendment rights by purchasing more firearms over the last year as Obama was coming into office. An armed society tends to be a more polite society, indeed!

At least this is one good thing that can be attributed to Obama, as the murder rate has gone down as our citizens have armed themselves, even if this was not Obama's intention.


Annie said...

Now, if we could just get local law enforcement to stop harrassing innocent citizens who protect their property. I don't know how things are where you live, but it's nearly a crime to use a gun here. Grrrr!

T. Paine said...

Pretty sad when the law gets mad at those that are protecting themselves from the criminals.

If they would lock up the criminals and keep them locked up we wouldn't have to worry about it as much.

I guess we are supposed to just wait for the police whenever someone is breaking into our homes.

Like the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

S.W. Anderson said...

That is an interesting pairing of statistics, although it remains to be objectively established what effect, if any, the one had on creating the other.

If a tree falls in the forest just after a crow flies from one of its branches, can we say the crow caused the tree to fall down? Perhaps, but that would have to be proven somehow. The more logical explanation is that the crow happened to fly off just before the tree fell over, which the tree would've done anyway. In other words, it was a coincidence.

Re: Obama deviously working with international and U.N. agencies. To the extent his work limits the flow of U.S.-made military arms to places where they will only cause and/or add to problems, I hope he's successful. As far as the U.S. is concerned, Obama hasn't proposed or encouraged any federal gun legislation. Not that that will make any difference to you, I expect.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Anderson, actually it is pretty well documented that gun control laws are directly proportional to crime rates. Look at the cities in our nation with the strictest gun control laws and almost invariably they also have the highest crime rates. (Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit etc.)

Further, about ten years or so ago Australia did a nation-wide ban on hand-guns within their country. The following years saw HUGE increases in burglary, home invasion, and all other manner of violent crimes.

When you disarm law abiding citizens, you effectively make criminals more brazen as they know they have less to fear now. (They will not be giving up their guns, by the way.) If a criminal is unsure whether mugging someone or breaking into their home is going to result in armed resistance, they are far less likely to do so.

There is an excellent book on this topic that is called "More Guns Less Crime" by John R. Lott Jr. He is a doctor of economics and tied the correlation up very well.

Common sense would also suggest that if law abiding citizens are immediately able to defend themselves, the amount of crooks attempting to victimize them will be less so.

Lastly, I have no problem controlling illegal arms shipments to other countries etc. Indeed this should be a primary reason for the ATF to exist. But don't kid yourself, Obama hates guns and will work behind the scenes in whatever capacity he can to reduce or eliminate them.

That is the very reason why gun sales soared immediately after Obama won the presidency. Gun owners are very well aware of Obama's stance on them. I have been into more than one gun store that has had a picture of President Obama with the title "Salesman of the Year" accordingly.

S.W. Anderson said...

"Look at the cities in our nation with the strictest gun control laws and almost invariably they also have the highest crime rates."

You're seizing on one of a large number of variables and using it to leap to a conclusion. For example, those same cities tend to have the highest ratio of police to residents. Are we to conclude from that that the more police a city has, the higher it's crime rate?
Is the way to reduce the crime rate in those cities to trim the size of their police forces? I don't think so.

"When you disarm law abiding citizens, you effectively make criminals more brazen as they know they have less to fear now."

That argument has some appeal. But why is the experience in the U.K., Scandinavia, across much of Europe, and in Japan so different?

And what about the often cited statistic offered not only by anti-handgun groups, but sometimes by law enforcement, that gun owners are more than twice as likely to be shot if and when they become crime victims, than those who don't own a gun?

Mind you, I'm not arguing for disarming law-abiding citizens. I never have. But I will not accept at face values the sometimes faulty and often overheated arguments put forth by hard line pro-gun people. I urge you to consider those arguments with a critical mind as well.

BTW, as Obama has explained it, he hates what guns do in densely populated city neighborhoods where gangs square off and do drive-bys. He has said, and I believe him, that he knows very well the situation in many places -- rural places, the West, where people grow up with hunting, with being taught how to handle a gun, shoot, go hunting, by a family member -- are a very different matter. He has no problem with those.

Having lived and worked in some rough neighborhoods, he's seen some tragedies. So far, as president, he hasn't said or done anything to change gun laws. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't let your suspicions run wild and lapse into paranoia.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Anderson, common sense would seem to dictate that if you have a potentially significant percentage of your population that is armed, a would-be criminal is at the very least going to stop and consider the increased risk he will be taking when attempting to mug, rape, murder, or break into someone's home. Odds are that most criminals will find the risk to be too great of being shot and find other means of entertainment with their criminal activity.

As for Europe, Scandinavia, and Japan, those are very different cultures than America's and they have not grown up with guns as being a part of their culture and heritage. Further, prosecution for those with guns is swift and severe.

Frankly, that is one aspect we can learn from our European and Japanese friends. When a criminal is caught with a gun or uses one in commision of a crime, the punishment should be EXTREMELY harsh. This would definitely reduce the likelihood of criminals using guns in the commission of their nefarious deeds.

This goes to your point regarding President Obama and seeing the results of inner city gangs. If we prosecute and severely punish these gang members, especially those using guns, then the perpetuation of this phenomena will dramatically decrease.

Right now, it is these armed street gangs from which law-abiding citizens need arms to protect themselves.