What's Really Behind The Anti-Gun Agenda

It's 1:53 AM so if this post seems to wander aimlessly for a bit, that's probably the reason. I was lying in bed next to my wife and, like many nights, I couldn't sleep. I've been doing a lot of research on gun ownership and how it impacts crime rates. To me, the findings of numerous studies only proves what I've always known: an increase in the number of armed civilians means a decrease in crime. Here are some of the stats that I've turned up, many of them courtesy of John R. Lott:

101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types in 2004. Less than 1% of those (700) involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings (72%)

Firearms are involved in less than 2% of accidental fatalities among children.

Accidental firearm-related fatalities declined by 13% between 2002 and 2003 despite increased gun ownership.

A study by criminologist Gary Kleck showed that robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.

On the whole, the total violent crime rate of Right To Carry states is lower than other states. Total violent crime is 27% lower, murder is 32% lower, robbery is 45% lower and aggravated assault is 20% lower.

The states with the least gun control laws have the lowest crime rates.

From 1977 to 1999, when states passed Right To Carry laws, multiple-victim public shootings fell by 60% and deaths and injuries caused by them fell 78%. Right To Carry laws were the ONLY laws that had any noticeable effect on these types of attacks.

When these attacks (MVPS) happened in Right To Carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within those states where concealed handguns were banned.

Each year, Americans use guns defensively more than 2 million times. This is much lower than the number of crimes committed by criminals wielding guns.

25% of school shootings to date were stopped by citizens with guns BEFORE police could arrive.

The nations with the highest homicide rates have gun bans. Russia's ban on guns goes back to the Communist Revolution and they've always had a much higher murder rate than the U.S.

In the five years prior to Washington D.C.'s gun ban, the per-capita murder rate fell by 27%. After the gun ban, it climbed by 30% over five years. Robberies increased by 60% during that same time frame and burglaries increased by 56%.

In Washington, D.C., the rate of firearms deaths per 100,000 citizens was 80.6. For our troops in Iraq, it was 60 per 100,000. (Should we pull out of D.C.?)

Every major study ever conducted in a serious, scientific manner has shown that the only group of individuals that benefit from increased gun regulation is criminals. The group of people most adversely affected by gun bans and increased regulation is women. Elderly people are also high on the list. The reason for this is simple: Anyone willing to commit a violent crime is willing to break a gun law in order to do it. Law-abiding citizens, by definition, lose the ability to resist or fight back against criminals when their guns are taken away.

A study done by an "independent" group of scientists, partially funded by the Center for Disease Control, attempted to discover the impact that gun legislation had on crime rates. The end result was that more study needed to be done. This study took place because a previous study came to the same conclusion. In both cases, no evidence could be found to support the idea that gun regulations and/or bans actually reduced crime rates. In both studies, evidence was found that gun regulations and/or bans increased crime rates virtually every time they were implemented. Apparently, the studies need to continue until someone can find evidence that crime rates are reduced by such legislation. So far, none has surfaced.

What does all of this mean? What could possibly be driving the anti-gun agenda in the face of such overwhelming evidence that their actions are doing more harm than good? The answer: A desire to force people, through legislation, to behave in a manner inconsistent with human nature. The reason these people continue their fight, despite mounds of evidence showing the futility of their efforts, is that they want to force into being a utopian society. They view the mere existence of firearms as an impediment to their vision of (to use Aldus Huxley's words) "a brave new world".

Individual anti-gunners may have their own motives but the overall agenda is the same worldwide. They view the presence of firearms, not the violent nature of the bad seeds of humanity, as the source of all that is wrong with the world. As proof, I offer you Great Britain. Across the pond, firearms are virtually non-existent these days. The British government, along with significant portions of the population, bought into this view of humanity. Take away the tools of destruction and people will cease to destroy each other. The weapons are the enabler but they are also the root of the problem. If people do not have access to weapons, they will be forced to stop preying upon one another. As a result, home invasions have reached epidemic proportions in the U.K. and homeowners find themselves defenseless in the presence of their invaders. Similar results have been seen in virtually every other nation where such ideas have become law.

Human beings can be very violent, deadly creatures. We have a long history of killing one another that predates firearms. Going back to pre-historic times, we see cave drawings depicting battles between groups of people. When more advanced weapons are unavailable, humans will make do with whatever is at hand. If we don't have a gun, we'll settle for a knife. If no knife is available, a club or rock will do nicely. If none of these are available, we'll resort to using our bare hands to destroy one another. It is important to note that the more primitive the weapons become, the more the odds favor the stronger combatant who is rarely the victim. It is for this reason that women especially should take an interest in firearms. When faced with a much stronger assailant, having a gun can mean the difference between a woman being a survivor or the contents of a body bag.

No amount of legislation will ever stop the predators among us from preying on the weak and defenseless. The presence of a firearm in the hands of the weak, however, can prevent the weak from being defenseless.