Now that we are in the middle of another presidential election season, the issues that the campaign will eventually be fought over are beginning to take shape. We are sure to hear a lot about health care, mandates, entitlements, debt, deficits and stimulus(s). There are even some made up issues, like contraception, created out of thin air by Democrats in order to replace issues that they are losing the American public on (like abortion and religious liberty), in an attempt to scare women into thinking that Republicans want to ban the pill.
But think for a moment about what we are not hearing much about anymore. It’s an issue that, for a few decades, liberals seemed physically unable to shut up about. The issue is gun control, and for this (and recent election seasons) it has been the dog that hasn’t barked.
Modern day Democrats have had an ongoing infatuation with gun control. It seemed that, whatever the problem, guns were the cause; and more gun control was the solution. But a funny thing happened on the way to liberal Nirvana, the American public didn’t go along.
Consider some findings from a recent Gallup poll: read more »
Every time a gun crime happens in this country, the mainstream media give it sensationalistic coverage, and liberals cover their mouths with their hands like little girls and then remove them and start howling about the necessity of even more gun control legislation than the historically high levels we have now.
As the just published third edition of John Lott’s classic More Guns, Less Crime exhaustively demonstrates, liberals are moving in exactly the wrong direction in their zeal to stop gun crime.
Lott’s central thesis is that (1) criminals are less likely to commit violent crimes if they know there are significant numbers of concealed carry permit holders with weapons, (2) gun restrictions make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns for self-defense, (3) gun restrictions have no effect on criminals’ intent or ability to obtain weapons, and (4) gun restrictions thus disarm only potential crime victims, whereas reduced gun restrictions arm citizens and frighten off criminals.
Lott supports his hypothesis via mountains of data analyzed at the national, state, and county level, looking at both overall rates of crimes and the more relevant changes in trends before and after permissive nondiscretionary laws are passed. He examines multiple categories of crime including murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery. He shows that his results hold, both controlling and not controlling for every demographic variable under the sun, as well as unrelated but important crime rate indicators such as arrest rates, policing strategies, and national trends. read more »