Did you hear the good news? Last year was the first full year that it was legal to own a firearm within Washington D.C. limits.
Also, as kind of a coincidence, or maybe just a statistical anomaly – deaths by handgun in D.C. dropped to their lowest level in 45 years in 2009.
Pretty amazing – but I’m not about to claim that there is a direct link between outlawing handguns and increased gun deaths – or the inverse… that ending a ban on firearms has the effect of lowering gun deaths.
I mean, that would be pretty damning evidence that gun control only disarms the law abiding and makes them easier targets for criminals. It would completely undermine arguments against the second amendment. There would be no reason for gun control advocates to continue their lobbying efforts.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a few isolated incidents that make the suggestion that gun control causes MORE gun deaths.
Like, in Washington D.C. for instance. In 1976, the city enacted one of, if not the strictest handgun bans in the country. Between the start of the ban and 2002, gun deaths increased 134 percent, while the overall rate for the country declined 2 percent.
Or in London, where gun crime jumped 40% two years after they banned handguns. A quote from Reason magazine:
In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
The New York City gun restrictions show how ineffective such regulations are on criminals. In 1973, according to the New York Times, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation’s largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns there.
Vermont currently has the most lax gun laws in the United States. Anyone can purchase a gun without a license or registration. The gun merchant just makes a 2 minute phone call to confirm that the purchaser hasn’t explicitly been forbidden from owning a firearm. (Felons can’t own firearms in any state.)
You can open-carry or concealed carry without any kind of permit in Vermont – and yet, Vermont has one of the lowest murder and crime rates in the world.
There’s other examples of gun-bans preceding an increase in gun crime. But that would be nitpicking. And by nitpicking, I mean, it would be tautologous to continually point out that banning guns raises crime almost without exception. If you believe otherwise at this point, you have your head in the sand and you really don’t care about the truth – and you’re happy with the state making all of your decisions for you.
So let’s forget the crime aspect, and talk about the EVERYONE DIES aspect.
Let’s take a look at what typically happens to an entire group of people shortly after they’re banned from owning firearms.
Here’s a greatest hits list:
Between 1915-1917 the Ottoman Turk government banned Armenian christians from owning firearms. It started with a harmless permit and registration law. Then it turned into a full ban. Then, the Turks slaughtered between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians.
The Soviet Union enacted its first firearm registration on April 3, 1918, shortly after wresting power from the Czarist regime.
Then, in August of 1918, an assassin shot and wounded Vladimir Lenin – and weeks later the Soviet government enacted a total gun ban.
Farmers in the Ukraine were the first casualties. In 1933, between 6 and 11 million disarmed farmers had their land forcibly taken and themselves were sent to forced labor camps or otherwise deliberately starved to death.
Before Hitler rounded up German Jews into camps and gassed them, he made them register their firearms, and then banned Jews from owning firearms. 20 million dead.
I guess I don’t need to list anymore, but you can basically look at any mass genocide, and find a gun ban.
Cambodia, Guatemala, China, Uganda, Rwanda – some of the worst atrocities in world history happened to a disarmed populous. Over 100 million people were disarmed and then slaughtered by their government in the 20th century.
Even the recent genocide in Sudan occurred under some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It’s nearly impossible for a black Sudanese person to own a gun.
Correlation does not equal causation, but it’s a pretty systematic and well-documented approach to genocide.
So, the crime statistics are just a tip of the iceberg. I’m less afraid of the crackhead down the street than I am of the State. Statistically, I’m more likely to get killed by the State. And even more so if they first disarm me.
I would shoot to disarm but not to kill. Like in terminator 2. Civilian death count = 0
Well, you’re talking about hypothetical situations. Of course it would be preferable to live in a world where people were not violent. It would be great!
But even in a world where guns did not exist, there would still be violence. Guns just even the playing field. Without guns, any big strong guy can do whatever he wants, take what he wants. Hurt who he wants. With guns, he is just as vulnerable as a little old lady. That’s not good or bad, it’s just a reality.
It won’t change, either.
But while we’re talking hypotheticals, are you saying that you wouldn’t use a gun to stop someone from hurting you or someone you love? I agree it’s not a situation I’d ever want to be in, but I’d rather have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not be allowed to have it.
The police shouldn’t bear arms either. The problem is the military and police recruit people who are willing to kill or harm others. I think it would be better if they were people who want to avoid killing people. Guns are OK for hunting but should never be used on other humans in any situation. There has to be another way.