By June, 2008 the United States Supreme Court may offer some clarification of the Second Amendment and the rights of individuals to own guns.\u00a0 But, their interpretation may be so narrow that it has little impact outside the source of the case, Washington, D.C., leaving the rest of the nation still debating gun control.\u00a0<\/p>\n
If we are going to seriously entertain wholesale legislation of gun control shouldn’t we first find data that will guide us to a reasonable conclusion?\u00a0 To determine the usefulness of gun control we need to study locations that have strict gun control laws and locations that have more relaxed gun control laws.\u00a0 This will give us a window to see how well gun control works.\u00a0 If gun control works you would expect areas with strict gun control laws to have lower crime rates and areas with lenient gun control laws to have higher crime rates.<\/p>\n
Let’s start with Washington, D.C. where handguns were banned in 1976.\u00a0 Before the ban, Washington, D.C.’s murder rate had been declining.\u00a0 For the 31 years since the ban, Washington, D.C. has almost always ranked number one in the nation in murder rates.\u00a0 Mayor Anthony Williams must believe the best way to prevent criminals from using guns and cut gun related crime is to post a sign stating, “No one who lives in the District of Columbia is allowed to own a handgun.”\u00a0 Will that deter criminals?<\/p>\n
Australia is a good source of data because they are like the United States, with similar access to guns before their banning most guns in 1996.\u00a0 Following the ban armed robberies rose by 51%, assaults rose by 24% and kidnappings rose by 43%. Homicides remained essentially unchanged or slightly higher or lower depending on the sources of your statistics.\u00a0 In Australia, just as in Washington, D.C., disarming the citizens led to more crime rather than less crime.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Whose side is the government on? \u00a0If you were a criminal what would you prefer if you were going to break into my home?\u00a0 Would you prefer to wonder if I had a gun or would you prefer to have the government guarantee you that I did not have a gun?\u00a0 I think the answer is clear.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Maybe we should look to England for answers.\u00a0 After all they are more civilized than we Americans and have had stringent gun laws in place for many years, adding a handgun ban in 1997.\u00a0 But, according to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years following the passage of the handgun ban.\u00a0 It appears the criminals were not obeying the new law.\u00a0 The United Nations reported in 2000 that the crime rate in England was higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.\u00a0 In England it seems the “No Guns Allowed” signs are not working in the best interests of the public.\u00a0<\/p>\n
What about locations that have lenient gun control?\u00a0 Does allowing fairly easy access to guns affect the crime rates?\u00a0 Switzerland requires every able-bodied adult to keep a semi-automatic weapon at home.\u00a0 According to gun control logic their crime rates should be staggeringly high.\u00a0 Yet their crime rates have historically been low. Their last mass murder was in 2001.\u00a0 Could the criminal be frightened knowing that every household owned a semi-automatic rifle?\u00a0 This required semi-automatic rifle is the same style that was once banned in our country and gun control activists want reinstated.<\/p>\n
What if a state made concealed weapons permits more available?\u00a0 Allowing people to carry a hidden gun must increase crime rates.\u00a0 Interestingly, states that passed concealed carry laws cut their murder rates by an average of 8.5%.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In 2004 the National Academy of Sciences reviewed roughly 500 journal articles, books, and government publications.\u00a0 They studied over 80 gun-control measures. They could not find even one gun-control measure that cut violent crime. The year before the CDC evaluated several types of gun restrictions and found “none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.”<\/p>\n
Gun control simply does not work.\u00a0 Restrictions on gun ownership increase crime. Think of the lives that might have been saved had we put all the gun control energy and money into finding and removing those who use guns for violent crimes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
We need to use factual information in the decision making process.\u00a0 Far too often these laws are knee-jerk reflexes to a tragic event.\u00a0 Passing legislation with emotion and without facts is costing lives.\u00a0 Edward Abbey summed it up saying, “The rifle is the weapon of democracy…. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.\u00a0 Only the police, the secret police, the military…. Only the government – and a few outlaws.\u00a0 I intend to be among the outlaws.”\u00a0 I agree.<\/p>\n
![\"Reblog](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/reblog_e.png?x-id=8e93531e-d24d-49c9-9a66-e995a1e53a87\")
<\/a>