In 1998 John Lott wrote a book titled More Guns, Less Crime. The argument made in that book is that when guns are in the hands of responsible law-abiding citizens criminals have to be wary and thus will commit fewer crimes involving personal assault. Conversely, when good people are prevented from owning guns criminals act more boldly.
Of course, gun control advocates don’t believe it, but no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime.
We now have more proof of Lott’s simple truth, by way of New Zealand. After a multiple shooting at Christchurch on April 2, 2019 New Zealand embarked on a plan to completely confiscate guns out of the hand of New Zealanders. The NRA noted that “[g]iven the abundant research on Australia’s similar gun confiscation efforts, New Zealand officials can expect that their gun control measures will do little more than trample the natural rights of gun owners…”
It now appears the NRA was right and New Zealand’s hope for a great diminution of violent crime is a pipe dream. Fewer New Zealanders have guns now, much to the benefit of violent criminals who now have less need to worry about retaliation from victims. Criminals clearly prefer unarmed victims. If you were a criminal, wouldn’t you? Of course you would.
According to an RNZ article titled, “Rates of gun crimes and killings using guns at highest levels in a decade in 2019,” last year “there were 3540 occasions where an offender was found with a gun.” The report went on to note that “in both of the last two years, the rate of deadly incidents involving a firearm was the highest it had been since 2009” and that “[t]he number of guns seized by police is also on the rise, up almost 50 percent on five years earlier at 1263 last year.” Making clear that the figures cited in the article were not skewed by the horrific shooting in Christchurch, the report noted that “[t]he 15 March terror attacks were listed as two separate firearms-related incidents.”
If more guns means less crime, it stands to reason less guns in the hands of responsible law-abiding citizens will create more crime. Why couldn’t the government politicians and bureaucrats have seen this? All that was accomplished by NZ’s gun ban was to make more of its citizens vulnerable to violent crime.
Gun confiscation does not reduce crime. The opposite occurs.
Australia was not able to completely disarm its citizens and neither did New Zealand. In NZ 56,000 guns were confiscated, but about 173,000 guns remain in the hands of citizens, including criminals. The confiscation had no effect on criminals except to embolden them. The criminals probably believed no one other than they possessed firearms anymore. The worst thing is that as many as 100,000 NZ citizens were made criminals overnight. Of course, these citizens have no intention to use their guns to commit crimes. They defied the law not to become criminals, but to do what people everywhere do. They maintained as much as possible the ability to defend themselves from the sort of thugs and maniacs who committed the Christchurch shooting.
Why would any honest and good government object to that?