Crime and Guns

Yep, another one of those posts. There seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding the legal ownership of firearms, the legal carrying of firearms, and the attendant result on crime.

To hear people like Eric Holder speak, one would get the impression that places with high rates of gun ownership would have higher rates of crime. One would ALSO get the impression that violent crime (by definition, all gun crime is violent crime) will be higher with more people armed in public. So, by this logic then, a state that denies the right to own a functioning firearm would be safer than one which does not. The obvious corollary is that states with restrictive laws on the ability to possess or carry publicly (openly or concealed) would also have lower rates of violent crime.

Sadly (or happily), the statistics tell a different story. According to the 2007 FBI crime statistics for Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, the place with the highest crime rate also has the most restrictive gun laws. The place with restrictive gun laws but which permits ownership of firearms has a lower rate of violent crime. The state with the lowest crime rate of the three? The one that allows open carry and concealed carry with a permit.

Here are the numbers:

Washington, D.C.: 1,414.3 per 100,000 people
Maryland: 641.9 per 100,000
Virginia: 269.7 per 100,000

Considering the similarities in location and population, one would think that the crime rates would be similar. Even among cities and counties immediately adjacent to the District, the differences are stark. DC has the highest rate, the counties in Maryland which are adjacent to the District have the next highest rate, and lowest again are the counties in Virginia. In fact, the total violent crime in just DC, Montgomery County, Anne Arundel County, and Prince George's County, MD (the three MD counties adjacent to DC) nearly equals the TOTAL for the Commonwealth of Virginia (19,246 violent crimes for these 4 alone, vs. 20,798 for all of VA).

Since I am using FBI Statistics, I hope that the naysayers will understand that more guns DOES NOT equal more crime. If the truth is what the debate is all about, let's come to common ground on what the truth really IS. If the stated goal of AG Holder is to lower crime, then the most logical approach would be to remove restrictions on private firearm ownership.

If this debate is NOT really about crime, safety, or what constitutes good policy for the people, then SAY SO, openly and honestly, so that the people can decide for themselves what to do.

To the Madison J. Gray's of the world I say this: The gun does not make a person more violent any more than a typewriter makes a person more intelligent. They are both tools crafted for a specific purpose. An idiot is still an idiot and will make idiotic choices. Which is more dangerous? A single person who is armed, or a propagandist willing to advance a cause without regard to the long-term consequences of the policies he advocates?

ALL of the government-sponsored mass killings came to people who were disarmed first, and all of the civilian disarmings were advocated by mouthpieces of the state willing to propagandize on its behalf.

The irony is this: The first people killed by the thugs-in-charge were usually the "intellectuals".

Are you an intellectual? Or, are you just an idiot with a typewriter?

Pax,

Newbius