The Epic Failures of Strict Gun Control Laws
by Providence Crowder
Out of the many homicide statistics that anti-gun proponents would show us as evidence for the need for “strict” and “common sense” gun control, they fail to acknowledge that most all of these killings are committed by people with illegal guns. Gun control does not work for criminals because they never cared about gun laws in the first place. They will still have their guns, it’s the rest of us that will be disarmed.
A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years of their release, these former inmates had been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides, 2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimes. Sadly, there may have been more victims had armed citizens not deterred those criminals.
Legally-armed citizens have PROVEN to deter crime. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found that:
• 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
Yet, the gun-control fanatics don’t care about these statistics. They forge on with their agenda despite clear evidence to the contrary. In some of the most crime-ridden cities in the U.S., strict gun control laws have been implemented with devastating results.
In Washington, D.C., the City Council passed a law in 1976 prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock.
During those years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was effectual, the murder rate rose an astounding 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law while the murder rate in the rest on the nation averaged 11% lower. The law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008 as unconstitutional.
Similarly, Chicago failed an attempt to curb its gun violence with strict gun control laws.
In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. In fact, in 2005, 75% of the murder victims in Chicago were killed with firearms and of the 75%, 96% of those firearms were . . . handguns!
With that many murders being committed with handguns, one would be pressed to assume that by 2005, Chicago had lifted its ban on handguns. However, Chicago’s ban on handguns did not lift until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2010!
• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives
• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime
• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once
And the anti-gun fanatics want you to lay down your weapon and make it easier for the criminal? No thank you. These evidences and more show that strict gun control laws have been ineffectual at curbing violent crime but on the contrary has had the effect of dramatically increasing violent crime and creating more victims. Criminals are emboldened with the assurance of knowing that their victims are unarmed.
Should the gun prohibitionists have their way, while your house is being burglarized or you or your loved ones are being assaulted or held at gunpoint, we should all hope that the criminals at some point during the commission of their crime remember that federal gun control laws make carrying and using their already illegal gun, illegal, and if they are caught with their illegal, illegal gun, they will be in big trouble!
The Assault Weapon Argument:
The “assault weapon” has been used as the poster child for strict gun control. In his Journal of Contemporary Law, David Kopel dispels the myth used by gun prohibitionists that assault weapons are “the choice for criminals and are more dangerous.” He notes that “Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been HEAVILY REGULATED in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.” To possess one of these weapons requires submitting to an FBI background check, fingerprinting and paying a hefty tax. Other “assault weapons” such as semiautomatics and large capacity magazines, that are the main target of many gun prohibitionists are used nationwide in approximately 1% of crime.
Furthermore, semiautomatics and large capacity magazines are more than a century old and yet still remain rarely used in crime. But regardless of the infrequency of their use in crime, prohibition on these types of weapons do not deter criminals from obtaining and possessing these weapons illegally should they become the weapon of choice. Weapons bans and gun control laws negatively impact law-abiding citizens.
Kopel makes a good point that:
Every ‘assault weapon’ prohibition ever enacted or proposed in the United States (or any other nation) includes an exception for police possession of these weapons. Yet, the only reason for police to possess firearms is for protection activities. It is irrational to ban firearms on the grounds that they are not suitable for protection, and to simultaneously allow the police to use them. Unlike police officers, ordinary citizens cannot make a radio call for backup that will bring a swarm of police officers within seconds. The lives of ordinary citizens are just as valuable as the lives of police officers, and ordinary citizens are just as entitled to use the best firearms available for protection.
Conversely, are “assault weapons” only useful for massacring the innocent? If so, then such weapons have no rational place in the hands of domestic law enforcement. Unlike the security forces in other, less free countries, the American police do not need highly destructive weapons allegedly designed for killing large numbers of people at once.
So while some petition the government to take away our guns to make us safer, examine the facts. Are you willing to give up your security and trust the government to protect you from violent criminals? And trust the government we should not because, as our founding fathers well knew when they drafted the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights, well-armed citizens will prevent tyranny from our government; a government that is now–under the Obama administration–trying to strip you of your right to protect yourself; a government who is doing the very thing our founding fathers feared. Bearing arms is our constitutional right!
And since we are all eager to ban guns and demonize the NRA because “guns kill people,” lets ban a real killer, abortion, and demonize the largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. Abortions kill more people each year than guns, drugs, accidents, and illnesses combined!
Let’s get real people! Gun control is just another way to disarm the citizens and make us more vulnerable to an increasingly powerful centralized federal government, and make more of us victims to criminals and others who do us harm.
Supply and demand is a powerful force. Because of the high demand for guns and other weapons by criminals to harm, immobilize, and put fear in the hearts of their victims, there will always be someone ready and willing to supply them.
Would gun control laws have prevented ANY of the recent tragedies we have suffered? NO!!!!!! In each instance, the assailant obtained weapons illegally. Most violent crimes are committed using illegal weapons and most violent criminals do not obey gun laws.
If liberals want a battle to fight, they should fight to have penalties for violent criminals strengthened. Instead, the liberals fight to have the right to kill innocent unborn babies yet free guilty convicted felons on death row. If liberals want a battle, fight the States that have a shortage of mental health facilities brought on by cost-cutting measures. Instead the liberals cry about the cruelties of institutionalizing the mentally ill, and now as a result of their efforts, many shortfalls in mental health facilities have left many mentally-ill individuals without a means for proper care and treatment. Some of the severely mentally ill then become a threat to themselves and others, and some carry out violent crimes–and they become institutionalized anyways when they end up in jail or prison for committing crimes or being nuisances to society.
There are many ways to fight violent crime, but disarming tax-paying and law-abiding citizens is not one of them.
 Book: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). By James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994.
 Article: “A History of D.C. Gun Ban.” Compiled by Meg Smith and Leah Carliner. Washington Post, June 26, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/…
 Ruling: McDonald v Chicago. U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2010. Case 08–1521. Decided 5-4. Majority: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Dissenting: Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html, https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Index%20Crime%20Statistics/2005%20Index%20Crime%20Statistics/CSDec05.pdf )
 http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp, Ruling number 1-95-1779: “Hunt v. Daley.” Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, February 19, 1997. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1056110.html, Ruling number 83-1431: “Sklar v. Byrne.” United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, February 8, 1984 (as amended April 17, 1984).http://openjurist.org/727/f2d/633, Case file: McDonald v Chicago. Plaintiff’s complaint. Filed June 26, 2008. http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/…
 “Assault weapons are said by gun prohibition advocates to possess certain unique features which render them far more dangerous than other firearms.