Why More Guns Equal Less Crime; United States Crime Compared To Other Countries

John Lott wrote a book called “More Guns, Less Crime,” and that statement has become a heated debate, especially after the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Those trying to prove that more guns equal more crime love to site statistics comparing two different countries, or irrelevant gun violence information. They love to compare gun murder rates of the U.S. to a country such as England. In these cases they like to point out that England has relatively strict gun control, less guns per capita, and a lower gun murder rate than the U.S. Then these “experts” will site how other countries have fewer guns and fewer murders, therefore they maintain that the phrase “more guns, less crime” strictly doesn’t apply.

The reality is that the comparison of one country to another as it pertains to gun crime is rarely an objective measure of what works on a whole. The real issues being overlooked are the other influences that affect gun crime in each individual country. The only accurate way to make a comparison is to look at the data of one country’s statistics prior to strict gun control and compare how that same country has fared after the strict gun control and limiting laws went into effect.

In the case of those who love to compare England’s gun murder rate to that of the United States, it is true that England has a much lower rate of gun murder. What those who are making that comparison don’t want you to know is that the murder rate in England was even lower before the strict gun laws were in place. They were low before, and yes they are still comparatively low now, but they are still worse. And for those who argue that gun murders in England may have gone up, but now it’s “on it’s way down”, the reality is that it is still higher today than it was prior to strict gun control. So at the very best, strict gun control in that case has had little to no effect on the gun murder rate, and cannot be proven to have had a positive effect.

At the same time the media pundits are pointing out that the United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world (true) they also love to make it appear as if the United States also has the highest rate of murders in the world on a per capita basis (false). They hope to fool you into thinking these comparisons support their claim of more guns actually equaling more crime.

What they are doing, however, is comparing the gun homicide rate of the U.S. with selectively chosen countries with fewer guns and fewer per capita murders in an effort to try to prove their point. They are not using across the board statistics. The truth is that even though the U.S. does have the highest per capita rate of gun ownership, we rank 28^th in the world in per capita gun murders.

And it’s not just murder rates that should be looked at when discussing the ability to possess a firearm to protect one’s self. Violent assaults should hardly be ignored when determining if a country is safer before and after strict gun control and outright gun bans. Unless you get away from what the mainstream media is peddling, you’ll rarely here that England is quite violent compared to the U.S. Britain has been named the most violent country in the European Union, sporting 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The U.S.  has a paltry-by-comparison 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people. This leaves the United States out of the top ten countries in the world in this category, largely due to the citizens’ ability to defend themselves against violent attackers.

The “experts” on gun control like to leave out another important fact: In the United States between 1992 and 2011 gun ownership went up by 300% and 18 more states added concealed carry during that time. Between those same years violent crime in the U.S. was reduced by 49%. Not only did violent crimes decrease as a “per gun ownership” rate, but overall! I would call that more guns, more guns on the street in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and less crime.

As an example of how strict gun control works here in the United States when it is allowed to be implemented, let’s take a look at the murder capital of the U.S. and the city with the most strict gun laws in this country—Chicago. Chicago's top political brass continues to make gun ownership for law-abiding citizens as hard as possible, while they continue to struggle with the most violent crime and murder rates in the U.S. Last year Chicago alone had over 500 of the deaths by gun homicide in the United States.

The point Lott was making in his book is that in an individual country—compared to itself—with reduced gun controls and bans, reduces the violent crime and murder rates in that same country. At the very worst, statistics of a rare country could be argued to have had no effect. There has not been conclusive evidence that more guns ever equals more crime.

Those opposed to the legal carry of concealed weapons love to point out that not one of the mass shootings in the United States in the last 30 years has been stopped by an armed civilian with a concealed carry permit. This statement proves informative as to the mind and arguments of the anti-gun propagandists--like Wisconsin Swiss cheese it's both stinky, and full of holes. This is another flat out lie by those who resort to any means to influence the masses when they find that the real stats don’t support their claims.

It would be more accurate to say, “There hasn’t been a mass shooting where a concealed carry holder has had the legal opportunity to prevent a mass murder.”

Those who quote the first sentiment fail to include the fact that almost every public mass shooting in the past 30 years has happened in a “no gun zone.” The law-abiding citizens who would have had the potential to stop the mass shootings were prohibited by law from doing so. Those who had the means to save lives did as concealed carry holders do—abide by the laws. The current state and federal laws in place have possibly allowed more deaths than could have been prevented had armed citizens been allowed to exercise their right to not be a victim.

Also, by definition, a mass shooting has to involve multiple murders of innocent people. The truth is that we don’t have any idea how many have been prevented by concealed carry holders—since they never occurred in the first place. Often murders are prevented by the mere presence of a firearm without even one shot being fired. One example can be found here. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

You are also never told by the anti-gun lobby about the fact that law-abiding gun owners across the United States prevent home invasions, rapes and other violent assaults on a daily basis because of their ability to own and use a firearm to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Perhaps the answer to the violence in our country lies in a different place than the smooth-talking anti-gun politicians would like you to believe. Perhaps the solution lies in a firearm in your gun safe, your purse, or preferably, on your hip.

In the next article we’ll set aside both sides’ interpretation of what our Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is, and take a look at the founding Fathers’ intent behind the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.