Fatcow Icon
The truth on gun ownership
Dec 18, 2012 | 3082 views | 7 7 comments | 7 7 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s — after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions — there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem — including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a “study” that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.



Comments
(7)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
ReedyQLewis
|
December 20, 2012
From the sounds of things some of these people want to make the criminals look like swiss cheese, make em whistle when they walk!

Remind me of a movie: Dirty Larry; 'Go ahead, make my day!'

The mane thing is that teh devil is loose. Pray children, pray.
ROSSisRIGHT
|
December 21, 2012
The devil's been loose for thousands of years. If people ignore the problem and allow it to continue, all the praying in the world ain't gonna do squat.(see Robeson county) It's time to crack down on the criminals. Again the democrats have caused this problem with their lax penalties on crime. Make punishment harsh and swift and crime stats will go down. Won't eliminate them, but with swift justice the numbers will drop. Criminals are cowards, but they love to be in the lime light and sitting on death row for 20 plus years makes them awsome to other thugs on the street.

I would love to see them hanged in the courtyard within weeks of doing the crime. Again, the other thugs not yet locked up will see it and get scared. Sitting in jail is "cool" to thugs, who embace this sort of lifestyle, in music and culture.
lumbee06
|
December 19, 2012
Dear sir or madam;

You are in idiot in my humble opinion. Have you not noticed the amount of violence in our beloved Robeson Co.? Yes, more guns will solve the problem. God help us all
BBBD
|
December 19, 2012
Seizing people's firearms and banning the sale of others serves no purpose but to disarm law abiding citizens. Criminally-minded people will acquire weapons regardless of laws. Prohibition never works, and they are criminals.

Consider this. If you support banning the sale of particular firearms or even the seizing of firearms, then do you support banning and seizing those same firearms from the police and military? If your gun control proposals are as effective as you think they would be, then why would the police need those weapons?

If you're comfortable with disarming the citizenry while the government is armed to the teeth, then don't be surprised when the brown shirts show up at your door and throw you in a freight car. If you don't think that can happen, then remember the Revolutionary War began when the British arrived at Lexington and Concord to seize the firearms of the Patriots, and the people of Germany elected Hitler.
ROSSisRIGHT
|
December 20, 2012
Hey lumbee06, if you don't like guns, put a sign in your front yard that reads: THIS HOME IS GUN FREE AND SAFE. Do you actually think a criminal will obey a law that makes guns illegal? Killing is illegal and that hasn't stopped a murderer. Schools are GUN FREE ZONES, and we see that law hasn't worked.

When, your kid is being attacked in the middle of the night by an intruder, ask him to "please be gentle" while you call the police and wait, while the kid screams for her life. Yep, safety, you wouldn't want to hurt that 6 ft man with a gun would you. Well ask your kid...........
sagehopper
|
December 20, 2012
Dear 06..I own 6 different weapons of various types and calibers, and I do not count my USMC Kaybar in that. They have NEVER crawled out of their storage nich, or their holsters to harm a human being. That will only happen if I find a prowler in my house, or if I am ambushed by somebody on the sidewalk who means to do me or my wife harm. But even then..I will have to make them perform. Try as I might, there is no "autopilot" built into any of my weapons. You do not seem to understand the nature of inamimate objects, or living ones...or humasn nature.
ReallyRobeson?
|
December 20, 2012
Although we frequently disagree, I knew there was some common ground between me and these other folks who've commented.

I'm more pro-gun than any other two people I know of but I also don't mind some reasonable safeguards on firearms; catch a criminal with a gun, amputate his hands. That to me would clear up the majority of the criminal use of firearms quicker than AG Holder can say "Fast and Furious".

I'm heartbroken over the Connecticut tragedy but I wonder how many innocents in the US were killed last Friday because of drunk driving... how about texting and driving? I suspect these would be some comparable #s yet no outcry. What gives? Could it be that the anti gun people are not as sincere about the sanctity of life as they claim and are really just bent on telling another with different interests what they can and cannot do?

Look at Bloomberg emerging as one of the most vocal. He's outlawed large sized sodas in his jurisdiction for God's sakes. Give him enough time and he'll start going after not only your actions he disagrees with but your thoughts as well.

I'll end with the thought that letting those qualified carry guns wherever they wish may not stop these tragedies but I can say with authority that if any of those female heroes last week had accessed a 1911 .45 acp, the outcome would most assuredly not have been Lanza dying AFTER killing 26 innocents.
Weather
Sponsored By:

Lottery
Sponsored By:

Stocks
Sponsored By:

Gas Prices
Sponsored By:

Featured Businesses
Recipes
Sponsored By: