Gun Control Doesn't Work

The anti-self defense crowd is following Rahm Emanuel’s advice about not letting a crisis go to waste. They are using the blood of innocent children murdered in Connecticut as war paint to push their agenda. Their message is that guns are bad and should be banned. They believe that disarming the public makes them safe. Constitutional issues aside, this argument is demonstrably false and thoroughly immoral. Not a single life has been saved by gun-free zones. The Newton school was one such place. Its sole effect was to guarantee that no teacher or administrator could defend themselves or the children in their care. It is worth noting that mass murders have been prevented by citizens with firearms. Much to the dismay of gun banners, the courts and various legislative bodies have eased many firearm restrictions. Dire predictions of out-of-control violence in localities that eased restrictions on open and concealed carry regulations proved unfounded. Not only did violence not increase, it actually dropped where citizens are allowed to protect themselves. Compare this to the violent crime rates of communities, such as New York City and Chicago, which have draconian gun-control laws. Experience and academic studies alike affirm what common sense already makes obvious — gun control is counter-productive. This won’t stop the gun-control crowd from redoubling their efforts to make us all defenseless. These zealots can’t see the blood on their hands.

The Judge

Here's an absolute “must have” for anyone serious about self-defense.

The Judge by Taurus International is perfect for home or auto. Remember that when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Obama’s Replacement

Is this the best Illinois Democrats can do? Check out this article in Reason Online.

Concealed Carry Saves Lives

Anti-self defense fanatics cling to the absurd and thoroughly immoral belief that being defenseless makes you safer. Don't tell that to Suzanne Gratia Hupp.

Gun Safety and Natural Selection

I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I'm also a believer in Natural Selection. Here's one reason why.

Gun Ownership Fights Crime

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Heller case, I read letter to the editor in my local newspaper condemning the decision as “Welcome to the Wild West,” and predicting increased firearms violence.

I responded online applauding the court’s ruling. I wrote that the crime rate dramatically increased in the United Kingdom and Australia after those countries outlawed most firearms. I also claimed that the crime rate in the District of Columbia also increased following its draconian (and unconstitutional) gun ban.

Other readers responded to me, demanding that I prove my assertions without quoting the National Rifle Association.

Fair enough. I would take anything from the Brady Campaign with more than a few grains of salt.

First, let’s look at crime rates in the U.K. and the impact of the gun ban in that country. Just look at this report from, the Times of London, Aug. 26, 2007.

“The Home Office figures — which exclude crimes involving air weapons — show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06.”

Australia’s experience with gun control is similar to the U.K.’s.

“The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.” Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

“Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75.” — “Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls,” Illawarra Mercury, Oct. 28, 1998.

“Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%.” — “Gun crime soars,” Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

“Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started.” — “Killings rise in gun hunt,” Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

“Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever.” — Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

“The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago.“ — South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

After the ban, D.C.’s murder rate only once fell below what it was in 1976. From 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.’s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976. After the ban, DC’s murder and violent rates rose relative to Maryland and Virginia as well as relative to other cities with more than 500,000 people, according to a Federal Emergency Management Agency report.

One writer expressed fears of “mass murders by disgruntled employees or school outcasts.” Data show that he has more to fear in states that do not have nondiscretionary concealed carry laws. Ten states passed nondiscretionary concealed carry laws between 1977-92 (California is not one of the states). Not only did gun violence decrease in those states, but mass public shootings in those states were eliminated five years later.

In fact, mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens in such places as the Appalachian School of Law in Kentucky in 2006; a high school in Boulder, Colorado in 1997; and most recently in Winnemucca, Nevada, in May 2008.

Contrast this with mass shootings in “gun free zones” such as Virginia Tech or the Long Island Railroad where helpless victims were slaughtered because they were unable to protect themselves.

One reader asks, “When will the madness end?”

The madness ends when people who would commit these crimes know that their intended victims will defend themselves.