Obama And Company........Gun Control.......Or a lead into something worse
There is abundant evidence that our cities are safer with guns. One of the most remarkable examples of this simple maxim is Washington, D.C.
Thirty-two years ago, lawmakers banned gun ownership in D.C. Over the next three decades, the murder rate in the nation’s capital skyrocketed 134 percent. Yet in the two years since a federal appeals court overturned the D.C. ban of handguns, the incidence of gun violence has dropped dramatically. The example of Washington only reinforces what scientific research has long since discerned: Strict gun laws do not work. Indeed, the cities with the most restrictive gun laws — Washington, Chicago, New York and California — consistently rate among the highest level of violent crime in the country. In New Jersey, the murder rate jumped 46 percent in the two years since lawmakers enacted what they called "the most stringent gun law" in the country.
Though these results may seem counterintuitive, they have a simple explanation. Strict gun control does not reduce crime because it does not keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Criminals do not abide by waiting periods or registration requirements. The only people affected by these so-called “gun control” measures are law-abiding citizens, who are rendered less able to resist crime.
According to a 1993 survey conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, approximately 2 million law-abiding citizens per year use guns to resist crimes. Get it? Guns give victims the ability to fight back against violent criminals. And whereas strict gun control measures would not be likely to inhibit criminals (they do, after all, break the law for a living), it would strip law-abiding citizens of the ability to defend themselves against violent attacks. The undeniable implication: Less — not more — stringent gun control makes our society safer.