More Handguns in U.S., Streets Safer than Ever
In 1979, the group now known as the Brady Campaign said "over 50 million handguns flood the houses and streets of our nation. . . . If we continue at this pace, we will have equipped ourselves with more than 100 million handguns by the turn of the century. One hundred million handguns. Will we be safer then?"
In 2008, after the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said, "introducing more handguns into the district will mean more handgun violence."
And in 2010, after the Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to arms nationwide, Chicago Alderwoman Freddrenna Lyle said, "If people bothered to read, as opposed to getting their news from the 'Tea Party Times,' they would understand and see that there is more harm done by the proliferation of handguns than there is benefit."
That's the kind of fear-mongering, naive and sarcastic rhetoric we've heard from the Second Amendment's opponents over the years. Now here are some facts:
Since 1980, the number of handguns has increased 50 percent, and the nation's murder rate has decreased 52 percent. After Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, murders in the city increased. After D.C. banned handguns in 1976, its murder rate rose 201 percent through 1991, while the U.S. rate increased 12 percent. After Chicago banned handguns in 1982, its murder rate increased 49 percent through 1994, while the U.S. rate decreased one percent. And in the year following the repeal of D.C.'s handgun ban, its murder rate decreased 24 percent. In sum, the number of handguns is at an all-time, and the nation's murder rate is at a 45-year low.
To see these statistics in line graph form, please click here.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The point is this - the Brady Campaign and many gun control advocates made the specific claim on numerous occasions that more guns and guns being more available would result in increased murder , crime , and " gun violence ". They used this as the basis to push for greater gun control and even in support of gun bans and used this claim to oppose shall issue CCW laws .
But statistics prove that that claim is false. There is no corellation equals causation problem raised in the demonstration of the falsity of the Brady claim - because the claim that more guns equal more crime is facially shown to be invalid as we have more guns and less crime.
The correlation equals causation problem only enters the debate if there was an increase in crime and an increase in gun ownership and the claim was made that it therefore proved that more guns equal more crime or conversely a decrease in crime and an increase in gun ownership and the claim was made that more guns equal less crime.
Neither the NRA nor this article claim that more guns equal less crime. The NRA's principle claim is that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that people have the right to use firearms in self-defense .
What is pointed out here is that the principle claim of gun control advocates is demonstrably false.
I thought that it was saying that more guns equals less crime . That seems a bit simple. There are more than just one variable in the crime rate, right?
More guns in the hands of persons who know what they are doing with a firearm, are brave enough to act and smart enough to know when the right time to use a hand gun to me would be safer. I agree. Problem is that not all gun owners fit into that neat little box.
What amendment was repealed with another amendment? Wasn't it repealed because of something to do with underground sales of alcohol ? I see a relation to that and the underground sales of firearms . What did we do? Regulated the sale of alcohol. Seems to be working alright.
I know guns are already regulated, but in my personal opinion guns aren't regulated enough.
I don't want your guns I just want the right people to have them. Especially hand guns.
Tell me where I'm wrong .
How many gun owners only own one gun? %?
What else has happened in the times that murders went up and also went down? Is it proven that it's only the registration of hand guns that caused the murder rate to go up or down?
Obama is the cause for the hand gun sales explosion right?
Thank you Obama for making the country safer.
^threw in some Glenn Beck style for good measure seems to work on a good amount of people.
Loved the thank you to Obama lol
If it is STILL Bush's fault that the economy is in the tank despite the (surprise!) unfulfilled promised of TARP and bailouts , etc. then the thanks goes to Bush too. You can't have it both ways.
I fail to see how your comment related at all to handgun purchases and suspect you don't have a clue what you were commenting on...
that you must be high.
Let me refer you to the comment to which you apparently responded.
"Obama is the cause for the hand gun sales explosion right?
Thank you Obama for making the country safer. "
To which you responded:
"good line!
Loved the thank you to Obama lol"
Hence my response above. If you blame Bush for the economy , even though he hasn't been President for a year and a half, then you must thank him for making the country safer.
Now who doesn't have a clue?
And I'll explain it slowly so you can understand. The line jokingly referred to the current president making the country safer because of increased handgun sales, due to the perceived threat his policies would be to Second Amendment rights. Since the article drew a connection between increased numbers of handguns and decreased crime , the conclusion is that Obama indirectly made the country safer. There is no correlation between the economy and the country being safer. Get it? So bringing in Bush has no context or basis whatsoever.
You show me where I said the economy has anything to do with anything other than the economy then we'll talk.
You obviously didn't understand my point, so I'll type as slow as I possibly can and attempt to use small words.
My point was, if you are going to give credit for one thing, bad or good, you must also give credit - or in this case blame - for other things, bad or good. I was not linking the economy and crime - though it has been shown that the two are linked, but that's another argument for another day. I was just saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Got it? No? Too bad because I'm not explaining it again. It was simple when I first said. It was simple when I explained it. And it's simple now. Don't put words in my mouth. I can screw up my own explanations badly enough without your help, thanks.
First year statistics students have it drummed into their heads :
Association does NOT prove causation.
While the premise of the article may very well be true, the charts linked at the end of the article do NOT prove the premise.
Look at the first chart. The number of handguns increased in a steady, nearly linear fashion between the endpoints on the chart. But the murder rate roller-coastered up and down quite dramatically. Brush up on your statistics before making sweeping generalizations about two, separate plots of data that supposedly prove your assertion.
A personal favorite is the assertion that in the summer, the more ice cream consumed, the more people drown. Find some numbers, plot the two graphs, they'll line up nicely. Again, association does NOT prove causation ... Duh ...