Once you lose the “common man,” you’re done. There’s a lot of banter these days about the “low information voter.” But the current push to ban guns and demonize law-abiding gun owners has awaken a lot of people in my “immediate vicinity.” A lot of the people that I’ve spoken with lately about the assault on our civil rights by the Obama Administration and their minions are none too happy about it. The reasons are simple. Most people understand that if you ban guns then only criminals will have guns. Additionally, many people I know understand if you ban guns and demonize lawful gun-owners the result will create a thriving black market. Is that what liberals want? How did that Prohibition thing work out for you progressives? (Yes, it was progressives who pushed for prohibition … history likes to repeat itself.)
A black market is already starting to emerge due to a run on guns and ammunition unlike anything I’ve ever seen, especially following the reelection of Obama and the Newtown Massacre. There is a serious ammo shortage right now. Speculators are now buying up ammo and selling it on gun auctions sites like gunbroker.com for twice the original price. This has got to stop. But it won’t stop as long as the Democrats insist on infringing on the civil rights of Americans to own and bear arms.
The point is not just about “gun violence”; it’s about violence, period. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. When we demonize an inanimate object and ascribe evil to it, we have effectively turned an inanimate object into a living, breathing being. Instead the question and focus should be, “What would possess a person to pick up a weapon and murder somebody in the first place?” What are the true factors that lead to violent crime?
It doesn’t only require a firearm to kill somebody; that should be a no-brainer. More people are killed with baseball bats and hammers than they are by guns. Yet nobody is calling for the banning of baseball bats and hammers. Of course, baseball bats and hammers could be banned surreptitiously by destroying the economy and the ability to manufacture them. But I digress.
It’s hard to trust a state-run press pushing an anti-gun agenda to provide the consumer with accurate crime data. It may even be impossible to get unbiased data from the government, considering Eric Holder runs the Justice Department. But the FBI does put out uniform crime reports yearly that one would hope are not subject to the political biases of anti-Second Amendment lobbies and anti-gun policy advocates—like the White House, for example. Let’s just get our facts straight here and take a more critical look at the numbers regarding overall violent crime in the United States and the utter disingenuous claims made by the main-stream media in regard to “gun violence” in the United States.
One astonishing statistic, according to the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report, is overall violent crime in the U.S. has decreased by 50% since 1992; and the murder rate has decreased by 54% since 1992. Yet there has been nothing but alarmism and fear drummed up by the state-run press in regard to “gun violence” for the past 20 years. And there has been a total media blackout in regard to the real and measurable decreases in both the overall violent crime rate and the murder rate.
Early on, following the horrendous Newtown Massacre, the White House and the press, in lock-step, immediately exploited the atrocity for political gain—namely, forwarding their anti-Constitutional, anti-gun agenda, particularly in regard to semi-automatic rifles, or what the liberal media wrongly refers to as “assault rifles.” Semi-automatic rifles are not select-fire “assault rifles.” But this all-important fact escapes many in the media.
The state-run press and the White House have been obsessed with the banning of “assault weapons.” Firstly, anything can be an “assault weapon” or a “weapon of war.” The musket during its day was a “weapon of war”—not just for hunting varmints and game. You might even call the musket the “assault rifle” of its time. But from a purely technical sense, the term “assault rifle” is a loose term that is not really used by those who are knowledgeable about firearms.
The general consensus regarding an “assault rifle” would be a weapon like the M-16 standard-issue rifle our military uses. The M-16, and the smaller M4 and carbine variants, are select-fire weapons. This means the rifle can fire in both the semi-automatic mode and the fully-automatic mode via a selection lever. Full-auto versions of the M-16 and M4 carbines are typically a bit more hardy in their construction and so price prohibitive to own, according to NFA regulations, only the most serious dealers and collectors can afford to own a true “assault rifle.”
The AR-15 rifle, on the other hand, is the civilian version of the M-16 rifle and can only fire in semi-automatic mode—meaning: one round for each trigger pull. Additionally, some of the lower-end AR-15’s are chambered for.223 caliber ammunition and not recommended for use with the 5.56mmx45 NATO round. True military-grade “assault rifles” can fire either round, as can AR-15’s specifically chambered for 5.56mm NATO. The point here is the AR-15 is just a semi-automatic rifle like any other semi-automatic rifle, and the quality ranges from junk to state-of-the-art. The bottomline: AR-15’s are not “assault rifles,” even though they look practically identical to the M-16 “assault rifle.”
But let’s just say that an AR-15 was a true select-fire “assault rifle.” Would banning such a rifle reduce violent gun crime? Well, according to the FBI’s own crime stats, of the number of homicides caused by firearms in 2011, only 3.5% were the result of a rifle being used—the AR-15 being a subset of that group. So why do the gun grabbers want to ban rifles like the AR-15 so badly? Well, that is the question, isn’t it!
Typically, at this point in the debate, my liberal friends will compare the murder rate of the U.K. and Australia to the U.S. murder rate and point out the rates are lower in the U.K. and Australia. Anti-gun zealots are smug in their belief that their cherry-picked data regarding murder rates in the U.K. and Australia are a laudatory testament to the confiscation of guns and the strict gun laws these nations have implemented.
For starters, it’s difficult to make direct comparisons to violent crime rates in the United States and the rates in the U.K. and Australia, due to the vast differences in population, population densities (metropolitan areas), and other factors. So, when one mentions the United Kingdom, are they talking about Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales? Northern Ireland and Scotland maintain their own crime statistics. The British Home Office keeps stats for England and Wales only. The figures sourced in this article come from the British Home Office (similar to our FBI) and the FBI’s annual uniform crime report.
With that in mind, it is true that the murder rate in the U.S. is some four times higher than that of England and Wales. But one often over-looked fact about gun violence in the U.S. is overall violent crime and murder rates in metropolitan areas with populations of 250K-plus are nearly double that of the national average. There appears to be a correlation between densely populated metropolitan areas and a steep increase in violent crime. The United States has a significantly higher number of densely populated regions than the U.K. or Australia.
Another overlooked aspect to the comparisons of overall violent crime rates between the U.K. and the U.S. is the rate increases and decreases over time. Although it has not escaped my notice that the radical left eschews historical data in preference to what I would call “precedent data”—meaning: a precedent (crisis) has been set (see Sandy Hook) and immediate action must be taken, despite any historical data that may reveal the desired action may be ill-conceived. I believe the left hates historical data due to the fact that history does not reflect well on them. But I digress.
If we compare the overall violent crime rates of the U.S. and England/Wales over the past 100 years, we see some significant differences. There has been a very steady increase in violent crime in England over the past 100 years—a 50% increase since 1910. Interestingly, overall violent crime rate in England and Wales has risen consistently following the enactment of strict gun laws in 1920, 1937, 1968, 1988 and 1997. It’s worth noting the coinciding dates of strict gun legislation in the U.K. with similar gun legislation introduced into the U.S. Congress during the same timeline.
Conversely, the overall violent crime rate in the U.S. shows a much more volatile history with large spikes and drops over the past 100 years. The big difference in the crime statistics between the U.S. and England/Wales since 1910 is the fact that the overall violence and murder rates have increased by 50% since 1910 in England and Wales, while the same rates decreased by 40% in the United States over the same time span.
There’s a damn good reason why the Second Amendment was included the Bill of Rights in the first place. It was included due to the lessons of history and experience that those who wrote it knew firsthand. No amount of laws and legislation infringing on the rights of citizens to own and bear arms will ever succeed. It will only create a thriving black market and threaten the security and safety of law-abiding citizens.
So why is the left being so disingenuous about their true intentions when it comes to so-called “gun control”? The crime statistics simply do not support their claims that less guns leads to less violence—quite the contrary.
What is the real motive?
Let’s just sum up a bit. Over the past 100 years the U.S. has seen a 40% decline in the overall violent crime and murder rate. There has been a 50% decrease in overall violent crime and a 54% decline in the murder rate since 1992. Of the all the homicides that were recorded in 2011, only 3.5% involved the use of a rifle during the commission of the crime. But when one listens to the anti-gun lobbyists and the fearmongers of the rabid left, they would have us believe that the United States has turned into a giant shooting gallery and we must only entrust arms to the government now—which amounts to nothing more than a direct infringement on our civil rights.
What the left refuses to discuss are the underlying reasons and dark motives that compel certain individuals to commit murder. It really starts with the condition of one’s soul, does it not? If we have a culture that is desensitized toward violence and human suffering, you can damn well guarantee there will be an increase in violence. It is what is.
What I find remarkable is the fact that there is a sharp increase in violent crime in more densely-packed urban areas, yet the left, through their sustainability and climate change initiatives, wish to pack us all into ever smaller spaces, disarming us all at the same time.
The purpose of the federal government is to protect the general welfare of the nation, not threaten it by disarming its citizens. And why is the White House, Democrats and rabid left so keen on rendering Americans defenseless? Once again, the crime stats condemn them, if you ask me. But, according to the left, only the government can protect us from ourselves.
You know what I call that?
- FBI Uniform Crime Reports Table 1
- FBI Uniform Crime Reports Table 16
- FBI Uniform Crime Repots Table 8
- Crimes Detected in England and Wales 2011/2012
- Historic USA Murder Rates
- Summary of UK Gun Laws
- A Summary of Democrat Gun Control Legislation
- What Happened When Guns Were Banned in Australia?
- Choose Your Own Crime Stats [Video]
- Ben Swann’s Blistering Fact-Check of Piers Morgan’s Anti-Gun Rants [Video]
- What Is An ‘Assault Rifle’? – You’ve Probably Been Lied To [Video]