Less crime in spite of a lot more guns

Even the Washington Post admits it.

Report: Sharp Drop in Gun Violence, But Most Killings Still Involve Firearms

Gun violence has dropped dramatically nationwide over the past two decades, but nearly three-quarters of all homicides are still committed with a firearm, the Justice Department said in a report released Tuesday.

So, it would be better if the killers stabbed their victims to death? Well, I wouldn’t want to be shot but if I have to be a violent crime victim I’d prefer to be shot because 85% of all gun shot wounds are survivable. Most other methods of deadly force are actually more likely to get the job done. Getting stabbed in the mid section with the knife immediately removed will likely result in death in about 4 minutes if not sooner (proper first aid is to leave the knife in). A severe beating with a baseball bat or getting kicked repeatedly with steel-toed boots will leave a person either dead or wishing they were. Same with repeatedly being run over by a car, or thrown off the roof of a building. Poisoning usually causes a long slow agonizing death.

For these reasons I’d just be glad murder is down, I wouldn’t lament that most murders are still accomplished with guns because other ways for sending you to the grim reaper can do it with greater certainty as well as make your last moments more gruesome.

I understand that lefties like the editors at the Washington Post are really trying to say that if it were possible to make guns disappear then there would be zero gun violence.  Or if the number of guns in society could be severely reduced there would be less gun violence.*  But all the other forms of violence would surge to take up the slack and, as I’ve noted, those can be just as gruesome or even more so. The world was plenty violent before gun powder was invented, and the victims had fewer defenses.  The weak particularly suffered at the hands, literally, of the strong.  Gun powder actually improved the lives of potential victims by giving them a fighting chance.

The fact that gun violence is down while gun ownership is up, and I mean way up, does not necessarily prove that the reduction in violence was caused by more guns being in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I get it that correlation is not the same as causation. But there is logic to this. You would expect that more citizens being armed to protect themselves would deter criminals. To establish causation though, more investigation using regression analysis is necessary. John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, now in its 3rd edition without ever being successfully challenged, does just that and shows that there is causation.

But even if you still don’t buy it that more guns could mean less crime, the fact of more guns followed by less crime, which is what we have experienced, does emphatically prove the opposite.  More guns do not, repeat do not, equal more crime.

So put that in your smoke and pipe it, you lefty gun grabbers.

*Note: Unless ALL guns could be made to disappear, merely making even a severe reduction might not reduce gun murder at all. It might even increase.  This is because such a reduction would likely occur among the law abiding, not the criminal class.  In fact, the main effect of a severe reduction in the number of firearms owned by law-abiding citizens would make a gun a more valuable tool for criminals and they would value them even more.  It is the universal experience on this planet that in those countries with the strictest gun laws there is little effect on criminals who always seem to be able to get their hands on a gun.  Venezuela is a great example.  All guns are outlawed in Venezuela.  The murder rate is about 75 per 100,000 compared to the U.S. at around 4 per 100,000 population.  Most murders in Venezuela are committed with guns.  Go figure.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email


%d bloggers like this: