August 31, 2015—In the wake of another shooting, this one caught on live TV, gun control activists are at it again and will certainly start demanding stricter gun control measures to make us safe.
Just like right after Sandy Hook when then New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg demonstrated his vast knowledge of firearms when he defined an assault weapon as everything “that can fire a lot of bullets quickly” and went on to say that “assault weapons are different than pistols because pistols you have to pull the trigger and assault rifles you hold down the trigger and it goes boom boom boom.” And that these types of firearms should be banned.
The former mayor makes a few things abundantly clear. First, he has no idea what the difference between automatic and semi-automatic is, he has no idea that these guns he is calling assault weapons are semi-automatic just like hand guns are semi automatic. The second thing he makes clear is that he wants to ban them. So, what we have here is the mayor of the nation’s largest city wants to ban something, but has no idea what it is he actually wants to ban.
This raises an interesting question, are Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, Senator Feinstein and the rest of the the anti-2nd Amendment crowd stupid? And by stupid, I don’t just mean their inability to comprehend the 2nd Amendment and the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s much deeper than that.
Gun control and gun bans have been a hotly debated topic for decades. In May 1989, California became the first state in the U.S. to pass an assault weapons ban. In 1988, California had 2,936 murders. By 1993 the number of murders climbed to 4,096. That’s an almost 40% increase in five years.
President Obama’s take on gun control is even more astonishing given his home town of Chicago has zero gun shops. They’re banned in Illinois which has the strictest gun laws in the country (concealed carry was illegal until the summer of 2013). Despite all of these “sensible gun laws,” Chicago has more murders that any city in the country and the president has had a front row view to see the complete failure of gun control.
The president resides in Washington, D.C., which again has completely restrictive gun laws, including a regulation that requires all firearms to be registered with the police department. They have a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and candidates must qualify for carry permits and posses “good cause,” which means they can have their application to carry denied for any reason. Has gun control worked in the nation’s capital? Not even close when ranked among the states. D.C. is far away the most violent in the country with a total violent crime rate (per 100,000) of 1,243.7 which is roughly double the rate of the next highest states (Tennessee (per 100,000): 643.6). Additionally, the violent crime rate in D.C. is on the rise despite the national gun homicide rate being down 49% since 1993.
The relation between restrictive gun laws and high violent crime rates knows no borders. Our friends in the U.K. have what amounts to a ban on hand guns. There are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K., making it the most violent place in Europe. That crime rate is more than four times that of the U.S. which has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000. Their homicide rate jumped up almost 50% in just a few short years following their gun ban in 1997. Striking similarities to what happened in California. The nation with the highest murder rate in the world, Honduras, has a national registry for firearm owners, it’s illegal to carry, and there’s an assault weapons ban.
Gun control advocates have pushed a laundry list of reasons for “sensible gun laws.” Every single one has been disproved:
• Banning high capacity magazines will stop mass shootings. This is false. The fact is two of the most high profile mass shootings, Columbine and Virginia Tech, involved firearms that had 10 round magazines. Columbine shooters used a Hi-Point 995 carbine rifle, which uses 10 round magazines. Similarly, the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns of 10-rounds. These high capacity magazines bans would have done nothing to stop these mass shootings. Ditto for the last two mass shootings in Charleston and Virginia, where the shooters used hand guns as well.
• Concealed carry equals more gun crime. Also false. The fact is concealed carry states have lower crime rates. Quinnipiac Professor Mark Giud, who studied 30 years of crimes stats, concludes that, “Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.” The study also suggests “that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level.”
• There is no need to own a gun; we are safer calling the police. This is also false. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the police have no legal obligation to protect your life in the case Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and then again in Warren v. District of Columbia where the courts ruled that the police did not owe a specific duty to provide police services to the plaintiffs. Actually, based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. That’s 989,883 crimes that a citizen stopped that the police were not there to stop.
• The more guns there are, the more crime there will be. This is clearly false as there are 300 million guns in America, more than any time in history, and because of this, the gun homicide rate is down 49% Since 1993.
It has been proven time and time again here in the US and abroad that more gun restrictions doesn’t equal less crime. The only thing that reduces crime is more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. When you increase gun legislation, all you do is legislate guns out of the hands of people who have no intentions of breaking the law and leave them in the hands of people who have no intention of following the laws. Obviously, more rules on people who refuse to follow any rules is completely useless.
Based on decades of facts and common sense, there are only three possible reasons why increased gun measures would be supported. One, progressives want people to be less safe. I don’t believe this is true. The second possible answer is that progressive lawmakers like President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Senator Feinstein, etc. have never looked at the actual data. This would be stupid, to promote legislation in regards to people’s personal safety without reviewing decades of data. The third possible reason is that progressive law makers don’t care about the facts and data and think if we can just increase gun control this time, it will work. This also is a very stupid position to take. To argue against years of factual data to strip people of their rights because you have a hunch that increased gun regulation will work this time despite 100% failure in the past is beyond stupid. When considering all facts and motives, stupidity is the best case and most probable reason for promoting gun control legislation.
Is more gun control coming? Comment below!
This article is hosted, designed, and promoted with the assistance of readers like you. Give a gift to keep VoicesofLiberty moving the message of liberty forward.