Gun Control actually increases Crime

Back in 2007 gun control was debated and ABC looked at the issue…nothing has changed that would affect this story other than the liberals are still trying to take the guns:

 ABC anchor John Stossel discussed the self-defensive benefits of gun ownership, debunking the myth that “gun control reduces crime.” The segment aired during 20/20’s recurring series, “Myths, Lies & Downright Stupidity,” based on Stossel’s book of the same title. Citing the recent Federal Appeals Court for DC ruling overturning Washington, D.C.’s ban on gun ownership, Stossel talked to the pro-gun plaintiff in the case, Tom Palmer, and pointed out that the murder rate in D.C. increased after the city’s gun ban: “Since Washington’s gun law passed, the murder rate actually increased, even while America’s murder rate dropped. It’s because guns can also save lives, says Palmer, as one saved his years ago in California.”

Of course people, especially Whangarei based teachers will fail to understand that guns can actually save lives. The vast majority of people killed in gun related homicide are criminals. 

Most New Zealanders simply fail to understand basic details of the Constitution of the United States. One sock puppet even tried quoting the 2nd Amendment but failed to understand that the last four words are more important than the first four words of the amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This has been tested repeatedly in the Supreme Court and repeatedly upheld:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Obama cannot and will not do anything, and if he tries his decisions wi be appealed tot he Supreme Court and likely found unconstitutional.

Meanwhile it would be helpful if Meg and other ill-informed anti-gun idiots try and education themselves both in the terms of the Constitution and in the political process of the United States that vests power in the States and not in the President.

  • stinkeye2

    The reason I don’t go and have a shootout with the cops is because I’d be shot to peices – same principle applies to robbing a house – you enter a house where guns might be an option and I bet you you’d be on your toes.

  • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

    Why does the State bother.

    Adopt the Liberal model (which if one looked properly is pro Second Amendment), adopt Castle Law and if you are thick enough to commit to a home invasion, expect some “lead” added to your diet rather fast

  • cows4me

    Keeping the people safe under the guise of gun control is simply window dressing, the ultimate socialist wet dream is gun confiscation. The founding fathers who wrote the constitution fully understood the tyranny of government. Human nature hasn’t changed in the last 300 hundred years despite the protestations of the left. The 2ND amendment is more relevant now then it’s ever been, that includes us in little old NZ. If the US goes down it’s curtains for us.

    • stinkeye2

      Its funny that they predicted that this would happen, and it will interesting to see the reaction. Perhaps civil war or massive rioting in the streets – after all not everyone is submissive.

  • Spiker

    From Obama’s press meeting today. Appears to have gone mad with power.

    “My understanding is the vice president’s
    going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun
    violence,” said Obama. “Some of them will require legislation, some of
    them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be
    reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to
    what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m
    confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require
    legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you
    get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun
    violence, then i want to go ahead and take it.”

  • JC

    Found this on Powerline.. I haven’t checked the facts given:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/01/the-week-in-pictures-2.php

    Basically non gun UK has 3 times the overall crime rate of the US and is very bad on violent crime.

    Its something I’ve noticed on Nationmaster over the years.. the US is no angel on crime but NZ, Oz, UK and many European states have awful total crime stats that may well reflect a basically unarmed population. Also NZ scores last on stuff like perceptions of safety “walking in the dark” and burglary compared to the US which is up around second equal.

    JC

    • Spiker

      From personal experience spending time with family in small town USA is that its far safer. Petty thievery, drunken violence etc is almost zero. People are polite. No problem walking around at night where as here bad things seem to happen a lot more. Oh & no tagging at all. Only tagging I saw was on railway cars passing through.

  • ConwayCaptain

    The problem is not controlling the guns but controlling the people who have access to those guns.
    Most of the people who have committed these horendous crime either in the US/UK/Aus/NZ have mental health problems.

  • kiwiinamerica

    The only crime statistic that is worse in the US is the homicide rate and even then if you look at NZ’s annual homicide rate over the last 10 years it has fluctuated from 1.8 to 3.0 per 100,000. In the best year in NZ there were still 10 US states with a lower murder rate and in NZ’s worse year fully 50% of US states had a lower murder rate. But when you compare aggravated assaults, rapes, car thefts and burglaries almost every juristiction in the US (with the exception of high crime islands like Chicago, Baltimore and Washington DC – all cities that ban handguns by the way) have a lower rate than NZ and many a substantially lower rate. As crimes go homicides, even in the US, are extremely rare and the number of murders are massively outweighed by the significantly higher numbers of violence and property crimes. I have felt safer in Manhatten at 1am than I ever did in downtown Christchurch at the same hour.

  • Mr_Blobby

    I think you are missing the bigger picture Whale.

    Cows4me has just about hit the nail on the head.

    Gun control is not about crime never has been. That is just
    the excuse they use.

    The General public is concerned about crime, so Politian’s
    give it some lip service and say they are tough on crime. Let’s look at how
    that has worked out, crime stats go up and down, but in general no real change.
    Let’s look at the latest Governments most controversial attempt to discourage
    crime, the 3 strikes law. So watered down after all the consultation it is nonsense.
    It was designed to fail from day 1.It was designed not to impact on the prison population;
    this was achieved by limiting what was considered a strike crime. Notably drug
    crimes were omitted, the reason, drug crimes are not violent, however every
    major drug bust requires armed Police, because drug criminals are armed and
    dangerous.

    Getting back to Gun control criminal’s do not represent a
    threat to Government. The biggest threat to a Government is an armed
    population. As the State gets bigger and more powerful, it requires more of a
    Nations resources, it also needs to subjugate the population, the easiest way
    is to make as many people as possible reliant on the benevolence of the State,
    through subsidized housing, welfare, public health or Government employment.
    You also need to remove any possible threat such as firearms; the only people
    who should be allowed to be armed are those that have been conditioned to
    conform. Notably, the Military, Police and other Government agencies.

    So how do you disarm a population and make it look as if it
    is in their best interest. Take advantage of some reasonably insignificant
    event, look at the hysteria generated when a child was bitten by a dog, and ban
    all big dangerous dogs etc. fortunately wiser heads at the time decided such a
    knee jerk reaction was over the top. Having criminals out there armed with
    illegal firearms, may well be a benefit to take advantage off, by using the hysteria
    around a reasonably insignificant event in the big picture to introduce some draconian
    legislation that effects legal firearms owners. Look at the big picture how
    many people die from suicide, motor vehicles’, alcohol, tobacco, bad life
    choices, general stupidity etc.

105%