Firearms and Crime

A new report by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States, and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada, once again demonstrates conclusively that the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the rate of homicide and violent crime. The report should be required reading for uninformed citizens, especially reporters, editorial writers and well-intended but otherwise clueless elected representatives.

It is an important point to make at the outset of any discussion of gun control that there are no peer-reviewed academic or criminologist studies (zero) which conclude that there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. People tend to believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts, particularly if they have ulterior motives or are driven by an ideology based on emotions rather than facts.

Now, appearing in the current issue of the typically ultra-liberal Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), is the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.” It is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. It would appear the facts show just the opposite. The researchers predictably conclude, just as every previous study has concluded, that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates as those which allow guns.” (Emphasis added)

The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the time-worn claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our “Right” to keep and bear arms. What these two seasoned researchers reveal is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun control laws. Logically, one could extrapolate that in America, the highest crime rates should be in places with strictest gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. And unremarkably, facts bear out that reality. However, in areas both here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership, violent crime rates are much lower.

Kates documented (in an earlier study) a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, during a period when overall gun ownership increased 103 percent, and handgun ownership went up 163 percent. Yet during that same period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.

Due to the renewal of the gun control debate in the main stream media following the recent events at Virginia Tech, researchers Kates and Mauser make a solid factual case against the emotion-laden rhetoric from the gun control crowd who choose to dispense seemingly endless misinformation to the uninformed public. While the latest research study will obviously not close the debate, any more than a dozen more studies that reach the same conclusion will close the debate, Kates and Mauser make a strong case against the anti-gun mantra. Their conclusion is that gun ownership is factually not the problem – gun ownership is not the cause of violent crime. There are other critical societal issues at play and the violence would likely be far, far worse were it not for gun ownership.

The inescapable conclusion from multiple studies is that ‘Gun Control’ is nothing but ‘Victim Disarmament,’ a central provision in every piece of gun control legislation. Ask yourself thoughtfully; how many armed citizens become the victims of a crime? In contrast, how may unarmed citizens do you suppose become the victims of a crime? Arguably, the unarmed citizens have a huge propensity to become crime victims.

Reality begs the question, why would any politician want to disarm his own nation’s citizens in the face of rampant international Islamic terrorism, and particularly if strict gun control laws have been irrefutably shown to increase the incidence of both international and domestic violent crime? Why would any politician knowing these facts want to create more victims? An informed politician serving our national interest would not make that choice. But then, why would any politician advocate open borders at the expense of American citizens except in their own self-interest?

What then is the ulterior motive of gun control advocates and most entrenched politicians? Clearly, their intent is not to reduce the number of crime victims. Their only other imaginable agenda is one of self-interest. Ultimately, could it be their intent to pave the way for our forcible submission to government policies repugnant to the majority of Americans? The incremental erosion and eventual loss of individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights is unrelenting, which by itself is a recipe for national repression. Private property is all but gone; freedom of speech has become a historical footnote; freedom of religion has mutated into freedom from the Christian religion; socialism has been instituted as the national religion; and the right to bear arms is diminishing under constant attack. Only the most naive of American citizens still entertain the delusion that Congress is serving their national interest and not attempting to rule in their own self-interest.

For numerous citations, search the internet for the listed authors of the study. To save time, a very informative and substantive article can be found at: http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

Red State Patriot

Posted April 25, 2007 07:53 PM
Read more on Articles - Red State Patriot ~ Gun Control ~ Socialism