Opposing Views: OPINION: Brady Campaign Won't Admit Less Gun Control Means Less Crime

Brady Campaign Won't Admit Less Gun Control Means Less Crime

By National Rifle Association , Everything Firearm Related - February 06, 2009

Comments(14) | (3)

On January 12, the FBI released preliminary crime date for calendar year 2008, indicating that the nation's murder rate has fallen to a 43-year low, and the nation's total violent crime rate has fallen to a 35-year low. The data suggest that since violent crime peaked in 1991, the nation's murder rate has fallen 46 percent, and the nation's total violent crime rate has fallen 41 percent. The FBI will publish final data for 2008 later this year.

In the same time frame, federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive, Americans have been buying over 4 million new guns every year, and the number of guns (including semi-automatic and other firearms that use standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds) is at an all-time high. Less gun control has coincided with less crime. Pretty simple stuff.

For most people, that is.

On February 4, the anti-gun Brady Campaign looked at the historically low crime rates and concluded otherwise. "Most states have weak or non-existent gun laws that help feed the illegal gun market, allow the sale of guns without Brady background checks and put families and children at risk," the group claimed.

Brady made the claim in conjunction with the release of its annual "state scorecard" gimmick, in which the anti-gun group "scores" each state from zero to 100, giving more points for more gun control laws, without regard to whether the laws have any positive effect. Brady used to give out school-like letter grades, but abandoned that concept when people noticed that the group was giving most states Ds and Fs when violent crime was low and declining.

Scores of 0-59 points are still worth an "F," and scores of 60-69 points are still worth a "D," however. And with that in mind, Brady gave 48 states an "F," one state a "D," and California got a "C." The average score for the 50 states was 17.7. As Brady put it, "Once again, the scores for most states are abysmal. No states got a better score for 2008 than for 2007. Five states saw their scores drop."

Since Brady gives the states worse scores every time crime rates go down, all we can add is "Amen."

POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW

Regarding Article

OPINION: Brady Campaign Won't Admit Less Gun Control Means Less Crime

NRA somewhat hypocrital?

I find it somewhat ironic that the NRA, which has spent a great deal of time, effort and money complaining about all the gun laws that have been introduced since 1991, now claiming that "Less gun control has coincided with less crime.". They reckon it's "Pretty simple stuff", I reckon they are just being simple minded.

- Pottering February 7, 2009 8:17PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Hypocritical about what?
  
  "I find it somewhat ironic that the NRA, which has spent a great deal of time, effort and money complaining about all the gun laws that have been introduced since 1991, now claiming that "Less gun control has coincided with less crime.""
  
  How is this hypocritical? If I do recall, the NRA has been saying less gun control means less crime for quite a while now. :/
  
  - F2XL March 3, 2009 5:19PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - The NRA is hypocritical
    
    What is clearly hypocritical is the NRA on one hand complaining about the increasing number of gun laws yet on the other hand claiming that less gun control equates to less crime when crime rates have been falling over that period.
    
    - Pottering March 4, 2009 4:41AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - How the... is that hypocritical???
      
      "What is clearly hypocritical is the NRA on one hand complaining about the increasing number of gun laws yet on the other hand claiming that less gun control equates to less crime when crime rates have been falling over that period."
      
      Let's take a look at your reasoning here:
      
      1. They complain about increasing guns laws.
      
      2. They say less gun control means less crime.
      
      3. Yet crime rates have been falling during times when guns have been heavily prohibited.
      
      I see your reasoning but the word shouldn't be "hypocritical," it should instead be, "The NRA is just plain wrong." As for your argument that crime has dropped as gun control was raised, I would beg to differ:
      
      http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa109/pa109index.html
      
      With more focus on "assault weapons," see the following:
      
      http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/03/03/holders-assault-weapons-folly /
      
      - F2XL March 5, 2009 1:12PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Because they argue one thing while admitting the opposite
        
        As I stated before "the NRA on one hand complaining about the increasing number of gun laws yet on the other hand claiming that less gun control equates to less crime when crime rates have been falling over that period" is hypocritical. You admit you see my reasoning. Whether they are wrong or not is a matter of subjective judgement. I believe they are wrong, others may not.
        
        Who are you begging to differ with when you write "As for your argument that crime has dropped as gun control was raised, I would beg to differ"? The link you provide can be countered by links to other reports claiming the reverse of what Kopel claims. We can all easily summon up reports that concur with our thinking.
        
        - Pottering March 8, 2009 6:42AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Get a dictionary
  
  You need to get out a dictionary and look up the word "hypocritical", primarily because you don't seem to know what it means, but also because you can't seem to spell it properly.
  
  Furthermore, there is no real irony here either. Most people (at least those with half a brain) are able to figure out that it is possible to pass new gun control laws in a given time period and yet still have the amount of laws on the books drop. It goes something like this: Five new laws were passed in various places in 1991, yet fifty or five hundred ( I think you get the point)laws were repealed. Protesting those new laws as being a violation of 2nd Amendment rights is not ironic in the least, particulary if the repeal of those laws enabled more law-abiding citizens to own guns without being harassed by an onerous bureaucracy. The NRA would protest even one law they felt it was an infringement of the Second Amendment; that is their mission. That gun control has become less stringent does not make some of the remaining laws any less worthy of protest.
  
  I don't think it is they who are being simple-minded in this case.
  
  - masanf April 13, 2009 6:05PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Wow! A spelling flame, from person who who writes "particulary"
    
    I DO understand the word hypocritical, and it describes you excellently. You criticise me for a spelling error, but then commit one yourself.
    
    The NRA has consistently complained about the increase in the number of laws, not just new ones. An increase means, in case you weren't aware, that the total number of new laws exceeds the loss of old laws. Can you grasp this?
    
    You need to think a bit before you tap away at the keyboard.
    
    - Pottering April 14, 2009 9:26AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In Response to Pottering

While your wordsmithing is something I can commend I disagree with your assertion that the "Less gun control equates to less crime" is simple minded. If you look at crime rates state by state and compare that to the Brady scorecard you quickly find that states with less gun control do, in fact, have lower crime rates. I have posted this on the Brady campaign article as well but will repeat it here for good measure.

California, with the highest Brady score.
Murders per 1000 People in 2005: 3.6
Brady Score : 79/100

Kentucky, with the lowest
Murders per 1000 People in 2005: 0.4
Brady Score: 2/100

Don't get me wrong here though. I don't believe a lack of gun control has any effect on reducing crime. Nor do I believe that a lack of gun control increases crime. I believe the single most important variable is the strength of the family unit. An active parent has more power to keep their kid from becoming a criminal than taking away their neighbor's gun.

And your country, since enacting strict gun control measures in 1996, has seen a 3.2% increase in homicide, 8.6% increase in Assaults,and a whopping 45% increase in property crime. The Unites States Department of Justice states that the yearly number of murders has decreased 75% between 1976 and present. That's 2.34% per year. Just more proof that gun control has nothing to do with crime control.

- Born2Hike February 9, 2009 2:57AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- You need to check your figures
  
  You write "And your country, since enacting strict gun control measures in 1996, has seen a 3.2% increase in homicide..." That is just plain wrong. In 1996 there were 312 murders. The latest data is for 2007 and is 253 murders (source ABS cat 4510.0) . That's a decline of 19% while the population has increased about 20% over that time. And gun laws have NO impact on things like assault and property crime in Australia because the use of guns in those crimes is virtually non-existent, and always has been, even pre-1996. You may as well have included fraud and graffiti in your list.
  
  And how come you went back to 1976 to gauge US murders? Here's US figures for murder and non-negligent manslaughter for the more recent past;
  
  1999 15,522
  2000 15,586
  2001 16,039
  2002 16,229
  2003 16,582
  2004 16,137
  2005 16,692
  2006 17,034
  2007 16,929
  (source FBI UCR tables)
  
  Despite this verifiable evidence you're arguing that Australia has seen an increase in murder and the US a declining murder rate? Care to elaborate?
  
  As for the differing rates of US states that is dependent on a myriad of factors of which gun availability is just one. I'm certainly not suggesting that gun laws alone will eliminate crime, but I believe they can help.
  
  - Pottering March 4, 2009 5:14AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Wrong, yet again
    
    "And gun laws have NO impact on things like assault and property crime in Australia because the use of guns in those crimes is virtually non-existent, and always has been, even pre-1996."
    
    Really? So the fact that law-abiding citizens have less means to defend themselves in Australia has no effect on the numbers of assaults and property crimes such as burglary and home invasion? Wow, talk about trying to rig the debate.
    
    - masanf April 13, 2009 6:08PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Yes, really
      
      Seems you can't grasp basic English. If gun defense of violent crime was virtually non-existent pre-1996 and still is where is your evidence of "that law-abiding citizens have less means to defend themselves in Australia"? The 1996 laws couldn't lessen a figure of almost zero.
      
      It is not me rigging the debate, I provided verifiable facts to counter the false assertions of Born2hike, it's him/her you should be having a go at. And if not, why not? On the assumption you won't be chastising Born2hike, let me guess why you won't. Because you don't care if a pro-gunner blatantly lies to make a point, but you are concerned when an anti-gun person counters a pro-gun argument with facts and a reasoned position. Am I right?
      
      - Pottering April 14, 2009 9:38AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Brady Campaign is just not credible

Time and time again it's clear that this gun ban group is only interested in selling its own agenda. It's not a real grassroots organization, and it is one that has been created from the top down by wealthy elitists. On this basis alone I would discount any information that comes from this organization. The real question is why is the Brady Campaign's claims given any merit whatsoever? It's a shill organization.

- Ramon February 9, 2009 2:12PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What does "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" mean?

All of the liberal, non-thinking persons have absolutely no concept or understanding with regard to the Second Article of the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers erred by erroneously calling the Articles Amendments when they do not amend the design of government called the Constitution.
However, the real issue is that the Second Article was specifically written as a defense against government. Each and every prior government that had removed weapons from the possession of the individual resulted in either or both, slavery or subjugation.
What is really baffling is the complete lack of understanding with regard to the phrase "SHALL NOT INFRINGE". It says what it means and means what it says. No government has any authority to place a restriction upon a state citizen to own, possess or to utilize a weapon in self-defense, or for the defense of his family, friends or neighbors, or primarily against government oppression of any type - PERIOD!
SHALL NOT INFRINGE means no license, no permit and no restriction to own or possess a weapon of self-defense!

- pilgrim1776 February 9, 2009 7:21PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
pilgrim1776

The Founding Fathers feared government more than any other possible fear and that is why the Second Article of the Bill of Rights was enacted into law. The Brady organization is part and parcel of the New World Order and the One World Government and neither of those organizations want the people to be armed since that will interfere with the subjugation of the masses.
The government schools and the totally, controlled media have done a massive job in orienting the masses-r-asses into believing that guns are a problem so this once great Republic is doomed to subjugation!

- pilgrim1776 February 21, 2009 11:03PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.