Twenty-One Reasons Why Gun Control Increases Violent Crime
July 20, 2012
By Michael D. Robbins, Director
Public Safety Project
P.O. Box 2193
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-322-7244
PublicSafetyProject.org
Info (at) PublicSafetyProject.org
Copyright © 2012 by Michael D. Robbins
http://publicsafetyproject.org/blog/2012/07/20/twenty-one-reasons-why-gun-control-increases-violent-crime/
http://publicsafetyproject.com/files/docs/twenty-one-reasons-why-gun-control-increases-violent-crime.pdf
In this Statement:
Introduction
Gun Control Increases Violent Crime
Widespread Private Firearms Ownership Reduces Violence
The Worst Mass-Murders Did Not Involve Firearms
Twenty-One Mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime
Introduction
Firearm prohibitionists have relied on proven false arguments to deceive and mislead law-abiding citizens into giving up their Natural Right to self-defense and to own firearms, as recognized by and enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other method, including non-resistance. Furthermore, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to deter and protect against government tyranny. Its independent and operative clause states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The language “shall not be infringed” is the strongest language used in the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that uses that language. More analysis on the Second Amendment will be provided in a separate article.
The same “usual suspect” advocacy researchers, with funding form the same “usual suspect” leftist foundations (e.g., Joyce Foundation and others) have produced biased, unscientific studies to convince ordinary non-violent Americans that they will be safer without their own personal self-defense firearms, and that they will be safer if all other law-abiding citizens are denied their innate right to own firearms for self-defense. Both of these claims have been proven false, and the opposite has been proven to be true – that law-abiding citizens are safer if they and other law-abiding citizens own self-defense firearms.
Most “gun control” laws do not even recognize the right of non-violent, law-abiding citizens to own firearms for self-defense and family-defense purposes. For example, the Gun Control Act of 1968 bans the importation of firearms based on their “suitability for sporting purposes”, without regard for or recognition of their suitability for self-defense, collecting, or investment purposes. Even worse, the determination of “suitability for sporting purposes” is arbitrary, subjective, irrational, and contrary to real world everyday usage.
A firearm is banned if it is one millimeter shorter than the arbitrary minimum length. A particular Beretta pistol with a standard rear sight and grip was banned from importation into the U.S. under the 1968 GCA, but the same pistol with the rear sight changed to a simple adjustable target sight and the grip changed to one with a “target” thumb rest was legal for importation. A flat standard grip that makes the pistol more suitable for carrying for self-defense, either in a concealed or exposed holster, or in a pocket or purse, could be purchased separately and installed in a few minutes with a screwdriver.
As another example, California Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155 require that “When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person”, the county sheriff or city police chief “may issue a license to that person upon proof” that “good cause exists for issuance of the license.” Other requirements include “good moral character” and residency or having a principal place of employment or business in the county or a city in the county.
“Good moral character” is proven with a clean criminal records check and perhaps some character references. However, The definition of “good cause” is subjective and is defined at the whim of the county sheriff and city police chief. The word “may” rather than “shall” makes California a “may issue” state rather than a “shall issue” state. However, in actual practice, the word “may” combined with the subjective “good cause” requirement makes California a “will not issue” state. Exceptions may be made for well-connected famous celebrities or very wealthy people, including contributors to the sheriff’s campaign fund.
In actual practice, self-defense to protect one’s own life or the lives of family members is not deemed to be sufficient good cause to carry a concealed handgun in public in California, a state dominated by Democrat politicians who are anti-self-defense. But carrying large sums of money or expensive jewelry as part of one’s business may be considered “good cause”.
Former San Jose, California Police Chief Joseph D. McNamara wrote in his book “Safe and Sane”, on pages 71-72, “As much as I oppose the average person having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson murders, some innocent lives might have been saved.” That is, the elitist firearm prohibitionists believe your life is not worth protecting and saving unless you are rich and famous. Perhaps McNamara’s book should have been titled “Unsafe and Insane”.
McNamara is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was appointed police chief for the city of San Jose, California in 1976. He posed in his police uniform for a photo featured prominently on the front cover of a Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) pamphlet promoting firearms prohibition. HCI was renamed to the “Brady Campaign” to conceal the firearm ban and confiscation agenda that was the basis for its founding, as explained by HCI founder Pete Shields in the July 27, 1976 issue of the New Yorker magazine.
In 1989, McNamara forbid the police officers in his department from exercising their First Amendment right to speak as private citizens in plain clothes before the California Legislature in opposition to firearms prohibition – SB 292 and AB 357 authored by State Senator David Roberti and Assemblyman Mike Roos – both leftist Democrats. As an example, McNamara ruined the career of San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle for speaking against SB 292 and AB 357 as a private citizen in plain clothes before the legislature, assigning him to desk work and harassing him to force him out of the department.
“Also in 1989, another police expert, the chief firearms training officer for the San Jose, California, police department, Leroy Pyle, produced a videotape in which he explained and detailed both visually and audibly, the difference between a full auto and a semi-auto.[29] This brief technical video by a police expert was also suppressed or ignored by anti-gun officials and the national media. For his efforts to shed light on the issue, Officer Pyle was suspended, given a punishment assignment and driven from his 25-year police career by his anti-gun chief Joseph McNamara. One of the charges McNamara leveled at Pyle was that he wore a San Jose police uniform during part of his public educational effort, something the chief himself was doing in paid advertising for Handgun Control, Inc. and in other public appearances to influence legislative decisions.[30]
“[29] This video was later circulated to lawmakers and the public by the National Rine Association.
“[30] In 1989, Chief McNamara wrote fund-raising letters for Handgun Control, Inc. on San Jose Police Department letterhead. He also appeared in Handgun Control, Inc. national advertising.”
Source:
University of Dayton Law Review
Symposium, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
vol. 20, no. 2, 1995: 557.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.
THE GREAT ASSAULT WEAPON HOAX
Joseph P. Tartaro*
Click on the following link to go the the full law review article on the Second Amendment Foundation web site (SAF.org):
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm
Gun Control Increases Violent Crime (GCIVC)
The last thirty-five years of the most complete and accurate scientific criminological research shows that often, gun control increases violent crime, and it never reduces crime. Gun control laws cost thousands of lives each year, and endanger everyone, including those who choose not to own firearms.
This includes research by professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, professor Gary Kleck, professor John Lott, Jr., and others.
(Reference the Federal Wright-Rossi Report, 1981, commercially published as “Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America” by Kathleen Daly, Peter H. Rossi and James D. Wright, January 1983; the Federal Wright-Rossi Felon Survey, commercially published as “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms” by James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi; “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” by Gary Kleck, 1991, 2005; and “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws”, Third Edition by John R. Lott, 2010.)
At least half of all American homes possess firearms, and it is mathematically certain that nearly all of them are used for lawful purposes and are not used in crimes.
There are about 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the U.S. each year, almost always without shooting the attacker. Mere possession and display is almost always an adequate defense.
Gun control shifts the balance of power to favor criminals over ordinary citizens. This is especially evident in mass murder shooting rampages, which are facilitated by the imbalance of power created by gun control laws and business policies that prevent self-defense with firearms. Shooting rampages may last from several minutes to more than a half hour, due to the imbalance of power an armed attacker has over unarmed citizens.
Gun control destroys the multiple crime control and deterrent effects of armed citizens. The crime control and deterrent effects of armed citizens equal or exceed those of the entire criminal justice system, including police, courts, and prisons, according to research by Professor Gary Kleck at Florida State University.
Gun control laws waste, squander, and misdirect limited criminal justice resources, including police, court, and prison resources, by targeting the wrong people. Gun control diverts attention away from real and effective crime control methods that have worked in the past and will work in the future.
And gun control is used as a smokescreen by liberal, soft-on-crime politicians, celebrities, and other public figures, to cover up their soft-on-crime records, and to divert attention away from their failure to support real and effective crime control laws. Most news organizations are willing and eager accomplices. All a liberal politician must do to instantly get lots of free positive national news publicity, that cannot be bought at any price, is publicly call for more restrictive gun control laws.
A more detailed list of twenty-one distinct mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime is provided at the end of this statement.
Widespread Private Firearms Ownership Reduces Violence
Firearms are used at least five times more often for self-defense by ordinary citizens than they are misused in all crimes, suicides, and accidents combined.
Therefore, a complete and accurate cost-versus-benefits analysis, rather than a one-sided analysis, shows that widespread firearms ownership by ordinary nonviolent citizens provides a great net benefit to society, and greatly reduces the overall violence rate. Private firearms ownership should be strongly encouraged rather than discouraged or prohibited.
Scientific research by Professor Gary Kleck found that defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other method, including non-resistance.
Gun control laws that target, restrict, punish, and harass ordinary law-abiding citizens, who have no criminal intent, are both counter-productive and immoral. The right to self-defense, which necessarily includes the right to own firearms, the safest and most effective means of self-defense, is a basic Natural right of free people that is recognized by the Constitution.
The Worst Mass-Murders Did Not Involve Firearms
The worst mass-murders committed by civilians (rather than governments) did not involve firearms. That is why liberal, anti-gun politicians, lobbyists, and news reporters restrict their discussion to the worst shooting rampages. Far worse mass-murders are possible and have been committed without firearms in the U.S. and in other countries.
For example, Julio Gonzalez quickly murdered 87 people using one dollar worth of gasoline and two matches, when he set fire to the Happy Land Social Club nightclub in the Bronx, New York City, on March 25, 1990. He set the nightclub ablaze after he had an argument with his former girlfriend who worked there, and was ejected by the bouncer.
Gonzalez was found guilty of 87 counts of arson and 87 counts of murder on August 19, 1991. He was sentenced to the maximum of 25 years to life for each count (a total of 4,350 years). It was the most substantial prison term ever imposed in the state of New York. However, he will be eligible for parole after only 25 years, in March 2015, because New York law states that multiple murders occurring during one act will be served concurrently, rather than consecutively. (Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire)
Thus, Gonzalez did not get a death penalty, and will be eligible for parole after serving less than 3.5 months for each of the 87 murders. That places an extremely small value on human life.
There are many worse mass-murder examples than the Happy Land Social Club fire. This example was used to illustrate how simple and easy it is to commit mass-murder without any special skills or equipment.
Recommendations for News Reporters Covering This and Other Mass Murders
Here are our recommendations for more responsible and ethical conduct by news reporters and editors in the aftermath of this horrific mass murder. These recommendations are also useful to news consumers to recognize media incompetence and bias.
We recommend that news reporters avoid sensationalizing the mass murder and making the murderer famous, to advance their careers or promote a “gun control” agenda. Making the murderer famous will encourage more mass murders in the future. This happened in the case of Patrick Purdy, who murdered school children on January 17, 1989 at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, as described above.
We recommend that news reporters refrain from including the murderer(s) in the “victim count” or “death toll” if the murderer(s) are killed or kill themselves. Including the murderer(s) in the “victim count” or “death toll” is misleading and disrespectful to the murder victims, because it asserts a moral equivalence between the murderer(s) and the murder victims. State the number of murder victims, and then state separately that the murderer(s) were killed (not murdered) or killed themselves.
We recommend that if news reporters compare the Aurora, Colorado movie theater mass murder to other mass murders, they provide a more complete and competent comparison that includes all types of mass murders, as described above, rather than artificially narrowing the focus to “shooting rampages” to promote dangerous and counter-productive gun control laws.
We recommend that news reporters refrain from focusing attention on firearm and accessory technical details, which news reporters usually misunderstand and get wrong, and which are usually irrelevant to the factors that enabled the mass-murderer to commit the crime.
We recommend that news reporters refrain from insensitive and thoughtless lines of questioning, including questions such as “How do you feel now that your son is dead?” and “Do you forgive the killer?”
These are actual questions asked by TV news reporters when interviewing murder victims’ family members. The latter question about forgiveness demonstrates extreme ignorance, and it trivializes the murder. Murder is an unforgiveable crime, because only the murder victim can forgive the murderer, which is impossible once the murder victim is dead.
We recommend that news reporters and editors use the more accurate word “murderer” instead of “killer”, “shooter”, and “gunman”, which diminish the illegality and immorality of the murders. Likewise, we recommend use of the word “murders” instead of “killings” and “shootings”, and “murder” instead of “kill”, “shoot”, and “gun down.”
Too many misguided reporters and editors avoid using words such as “murder” to avoid being “judgmental.” That is sheer idiocy, and it is disrespectful to the murder victims.
Twenty-One Mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime (GCIVC)
July 20, 2012
By Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project
PublicSafetyProject.org
Info (at) PublicSafetyProject.org
310-322-7244
Copyright © 2012 by Michael D. Robbins
The last thirty-five years of the most complete and accurate scientific criminological research shows that often, gun control increases violent crime, and it never reduces crime. Gun control laws cost thousands of lives each year, and endanger everyone, including those who choose not to own firearms.
There are many mechanisms by which gun control increases violent crime, including the following twenty-one mechanisms. These mechanisms include both general and specific effects. Although some of these mechanisms may appear to be similar or to overlap, I believe they are reasonably distinct mechanisms that merit individual entries in this list. Feel free to contact me with any additions or suggestions.
-
Shifts Balance of Power to Favor Criminals:
Gun control shifts the balance of power to favor criminals over ordinary citizens, especially when the criminals are armed and the victims are not, and when the criminals have physical strength and/or numerical superiority and the victims are unarmed. Firearms are the “great equalizer” for women, elderly, handicapped, sick, and otherwise weaker individuals.
-
Destroys Crime Control Effect of Armed Citizens:
Gun control destroys the crime control effect of armed citizens, whereby armed citizens prevent crimes from being completed, because gun control inhibits self-defense and defense of others.
-
Destroys Specific Deterrent Effect of Armed Citizens:
Gun control destroys the specific deterrent effect of armed citizens, whereby criminals avoid victimizing people they believe may be armed.
-
Destroys General Deterrent Effect of Armed Citizens:
Gun control destroys the general deterrent effect of armed citizens, whereby criminals commit fewer crimes in areas with a high rate of firearms ownership.
-
Creates Helpless Victim Zones and Advertises them to Criminals:
Gun control laws that create “Helpless Victim Zones,” euphemistically labeled “Gun-Free Zones,” embolden criminals by advertising to them that law abiding people in those zones are unarmed helpless victims.
-
Wastes and Misdirects Limited Criminal Justice Resources by Targeting the Wrong People:
Gun control laws waste, squander, and misdirect limited criminal justice resources, including the police, courts, and prisons, by targeting the wrong people. Gun control laws target and punishing ordinary nonviolent citizens who have no intention of ever committing a violent crime, rather than violent repeat-offender career criminal. In fact, some gun control laws do not even apply to felons, and others are used to primarily to prosecute ordinary citizens and are rarely used to prosecute felons.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), that felons cannot be convicted for a failure register or license their firearms, because that would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Arrested felons are usually charged with multiple serious violent and/or property crimes, and gun control law violations are not prosecuted because they are minor by comparison. In contrast, ordinary citizens who are entrapped and arrested for violating gun control laws are often prosecuted for those violations, because those are the only and most serious violations for which they can be charged and prosecuted.
The real purpose for registering and licensing firearms and firearm owners is to implement a three-step program to ban and confiscate all firearms from the law-abiding citizens, as explained by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) founder Pete Shields, in an interview in the July 26, 1976 issue of the New Yorker magazine.
Shields explained that the real gun control agenda is a total gun ban and confiscation, using incrementalism. He said that if he could not take the whole loaf of bread at once, he would be happy to take it one slice at a time. The three-step program consists of: 1) Get all the firearms registered; 2) Enact sufficient gun control laws to totally ban guns; and 3) Use the gun registration lists to confiscate all the guns from the law-abiding citizens.
Although Shields referred to handguns in the interview, HCI’s firearm confiscation agenda was expanded after that interview to include all firearms, including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as demonstrated by their actions, including their legislative lobbying activities. HCI changed its name to the “Brady Campaign” to conceal their true agenda. However, their total gun ban and confiscation agenda has not changed.
-
Diverts Attention Away from Real and Effective Crime Control Solutions:
Gun control diverts attention away from real and effective crime control solutions, including the most effective solutions that have worked in the past, and will work in the future if supported by everyone including liberal “progressive” politicians, news organizations, and public figures that have abandoned and opposed these solutions.
The most effective crime control solution is self-control, whereby people control their own behavior based on good values they were taught while growing up, with positive reinforcement throughout their lives. The second most effective crime control solution is widespread firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens, to provide multiple crime control and deterrent effects. The third most effective crime control solution is a strong criminal just system, including police, courts, and prisons.
It is necessary to return to the old and proven crime control methods:
-
Teaching good moral values; value and respect for human life; and American exceptionalism and unity in the schools and popular media (movies, television, and music), rather negative values and moral relativism; environmentalism, nature worship, and animal rights over human beings; and anti-Americanism, diversity, and multiculturalism.
People who are wrongly taught to hate their own country and culture; to devalue human life; and that human beings are the scourge of the Earth, are ravaging the planet, and are offending the nature god or goddess are more likely to commit acts of violence and murder on other human beings.
People have a natural affinity to each other when they focus on what they have in common rather than on their differences.
-
Promoting rather than discouraging and attacking churches, synagogues, and the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded.
-
Supporting rather than attacking and trying to destroy positive social institutions such as the Boy Scouts.
-
Encouraging rather than discouraging teachers, extended family members, friends, and neighbors to correct and report bad child behavior.
-
Strengthening our criminal justice system by: Building sufficient prison space to prevent the early release of dangerous felons due to court orders to relieve prison overcrowding; using Truth In Sentencing laws to ensure that dangerous felons serve their full assigned sentences; and having swift and certain Capital Punishment for most convicted murderers in clear-cut cases.
-
Encouraging rather than discouraging and preventing widespread firearms ownership and carrying of concealed handguns by law-abiding citizens.
-
Smokescreen Principle – Liberal Politicians Use Gun Control to Cover-Up their Soft-On-Crime Records and their Failure to Support Real Solutions:
Gun control laws are used as a smokescreen by liberal, soft-on-crime politicians and public figures, to cover up and divert attention away from their failure to support real and effective crime control laws. Such laws include shall-issue Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit laws, truth-in-sentencing laws, adequate prison construction to prevent early releases of dangerous felons due to overcrowding, and a swift and certain death penalty in clear-cut murder cases.
Most news organizations are willing and eager accomplices. All a liberal politician must do to instantly get lots of free positive national news publicity, that cannot be bought at any price, is publicly call for more restrictive gun control laws.
Many liberals and leftists refuse to support real and effective crime control laws because they view violent felons as “victims of society”. They blame everyone else, including violent crime victims, for “victimizing” the violent felons and causing them to commit their crimes. Thus, liberals and leftists have reversed the victim-criminal relationship in their own minds, and don’t see anything wrong with disarming ordinary law-abiding citizens and making more likely to become violent crime victims.
-
Substitution Principle – Felons Substitute More Powerful and Lethal Firearms when Handguns are Not Available:
Even if gun control laws banning or restricting specific types of handguns could prevent felons from obtaining them, the mortality rate would increase, because felons would substitute more powerful and more lethal higher caliber handguns or sawed-off rifles or shotguns. (Reference: The Federal Wright-Rossi Felon Survey, published commercially as “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms” by James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi.)
Thus, even if laws banning or restricting less powerful, lower caliber handguns mislabeled as “Saturday Night Specials”) could prevent felons from obtaining them, felons will substitute more powerful and lethal higher caliber handguns or sawed-off rifles or shotguns. A total handgun ban will have the same result.
-
Causes Early Release of Dangerous Felons with High Recidivism Rate:
To the extent that ordinary, nonviolent firearm owners with no criminal intent are entrapped, arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for unintentional technical violations of gun control laws, existing prisoners must be released earlier due to prison overcrowding and court ordered early releases. There will be a significant increase in violent and property crimes, because there has been a 63 percent recidivism rate among all released criminals.
Many liberal politicians and firearm prohibition lobbyists, including news reporters, regularly misrepresent gun control laws to reduce opposition to them, by deceiving firearm owners into believing they and their firearms are not affected by the laws. Often, these laws only affect law-abiding citizens and do not even affect convicted felons. Examples include laws with firearm registration or licensing provisions.
Thus, traditional semiautomatic self-defense and sporting firearms are legally re-defined and banned as “assault weapons”, and are misrepresented as fully-automatic machineguns. And expensive, high-quality firearms of small and large calibers, and small and large sizes, are legally re-defined and banned as “Saturday Night Specials”, and are misrepresented and as cheap “junk guns”.
Many firearm owners wrongly believe they are complying with the gun law restrictions until they are arrested and prosecuted, and have all of their firearms confiscated.
-
Creates Distrust, Disrespect, and Resentment between Citizens and Police, Reducing Cooperation and Effectiveness:
More than 80 percent of rank and file police officers nationwide support the right of law-abiding citizens to own the handguns, rifles, and shotguns of their choice, based on polls by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. And most firearm owners respect and support the police.
However, gun control laws that target, punish, and harass ordinary non-violent criminals can create a general “us versus them” attitude, distrust, disrespect, and resentment between citizens and the police, reducing cooperation between the two sides, and reducing the effectiveness of the police, prosecutors, and courts in fighting crime.
This is a significant problem, because at least half of all American homes possess firearms, and firearms owners would otherwise have a natural affinity for the police. It is extremely irresponsible for liberal anti-gun politicians to drive this wedge between the police and law-abiding citizens who own firearms for political advantage.
-
Draconian Unfair Laws Can Create a Culture of Law-Breakers:
Once ordinary, non-violent firearm owners are criminalized by Draconian gun control laws with no rational basis, many of them will develop resentment and less respect for laws they view as unconstitutional, unfair, and punitive. They are more likely to disobey other laws once they have been forced to become “law-breakers”.
This is similar to the effect where drivers who disobey unfair, unreasonable speed limits that are well below the maxim safe speeds (e.g., the arbitrary 55 MPH speed limit on U.S. freeways and highways) will develop distrust, resentment, and disrespect for the law, and disobey other traffic laws since they are already “law-breakers”, and they no longer respect the authority that enacts the laws.
Draconian, unfair, and arbitrary laws with no rational basis can create a culture of law-breakers out of a culture of law-abiding citizens.
-
Search and Seizure of Banned Firearms Can Lead to Violent Confrontations:
Under new firearm confiscation laws, police may use intrusive searches, and the threat or use of violent or deadly force, to confiscate firearms that were legally purchased and legally owned by ordinary, non-violent citizens, who may feel compelled to defend their freedom and their property with violent or deadly force. There is no benefit and a potentially serious breakdown in society under this scenario.
The American Revolutionary War started when British Army regulars came to confiscate the colonists’ firearms at Lexington and Concord. The Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War. They were fought on April 19, 1775. (Source: Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord.)
-
Discourages Calling the Police to Report Crimes:
Ordinary nonviolent citizens who own self-defense firearms in violation of gun control laws are less likely to call the police to report violent or property crimes, because any contact with the police increases the likelihood they may be arrested and prosecuted for gun law violations even though they have no intention of ever committing a violent crime.
This was likely the case in the infamous murder case of Catherine Susan “Kitty” Genovese, a 28-year old New York City woman who was stabbed to death near her home in the Kew Gardens neighborhood of the borough of Queens in New York City, on March 13, 1964. There were many witnesses, but none called the police.
It is statistically likely that multiple witnesses owned firearms in violation of the New York City gun control laws.
-
Discourages Defense of Others Under Criminal Attack:
Ordinary nonviolent citizens who own self-defense firearms in violation of gun control laws are significantly less likely to intervene with their firearm to stop a violent or property crime from being completed, out of fear of arrest and prosecution.
This was likely the case in the infamous murder of Catherine Susan “Kitty” Genovese, a 28-year old New York City woman who was stabbed to death near her home in the Kew Gardens neighborhood of the borough of Queens in New York City, on March 13, 1964. There were many witnesses, but none intervened, and none even called the police.
It is statistically likely that multiple witnesses owned firearms in violation of the New York City gun control laws.
-
Discourages Crime Witnesses Cooperation:
Under gun control laws that target and disarm ordinary nonviolent citizens, witnesses to violent and property crimes are unable to protect themselves and their families, are easily intimidated with threats of violence, and are less likely to cooperate and testify as a witness. It is safer to say, “I didn’t see or hear anything.”
-
Facilitates Witness Harassment and Intimidation:
Ordinary nonviolent citizens who own self-defense firearms in violation of gun control laws, and who witness violent or property crimes, are significantly less likely to cooperate as a witness, because any contact with the police increases the likelihood they may be arrested and prosecuted for gun law violations even though they have no intention of ever committing a violent crime.
They also run the risk that gang members or other criminals they are testifying against will have an anonymous “tip” phoned in to the police, claiming they own illegal firearms, even if the criminal does not know if the witness actually owns any firearms. This can serve to harass, discredit, disarm, and intimidate the witness. This has actually happened in Chicago.
All the witness has to say to the police to avoid these problems is, “I did not see or hear anything.”
-
Criminals Can Use Police to Disarm Intended Victims:
Gang members can use gun control laws and the police to disarm their intended victims, simply by phoning in an anonymous “tip” to the police claiming their intended victim has illegal firearms. This actually happened in Chicago, where the police acted on the “tip”, demanded to be let in to the intended victim’s residence to search for firearms, and demanded that the victims show them where they were hiding their firearms. The Chicago police threatened to shoot their dog if they did not comply. They complied, and the Black husband was arrested and charged for both handguns, even though only one belonged to him and the other belonged to his Caucasian wife.
-
Stolen Firearms Not Reported:
Non-violent firearms owners whose firearms were banned after their legal purchase, or who purchase or obtain self-defense firearms in violation of gun control laws, will not file a police report if they are stolen to avoid arrest and prosecution under the gun control laws. This may allow criminals in other jurisdictions to avoid detection, arrest, and prosecution for owning and possessing stolen firearms.
-
Banned Firearms Enter the Underground Economy:
Law-abiding firearms owners who have a large investment in firearms that are banned after their purchase may be pressured into selling them in the underground economy, to dispose of them and recoup their investment. This may increase the likelihood they will fall into criminal hands.
-
“Gun Buy-Back” Programs Give Criminals Immunity and Dispose of Evidence:
“Gun Buy-Back” programs increase violent crime and do not reduce crime, by misleading and encouraging law-abiding citizens to voluntarily disarm themselves, and by allowing criminals to dispose of firearms used in crimes with immunity, in exchange for money to use towards their next illegal gun or drug purchase. These “Gun Buy-Back” programs are advertised as “no questions asked.” The firearms turned in cannot be used as evidence in court, and the firearms are typically destroyed after they are turned in.
“Gun Buy-Back” programs send out a false, dangerous, and counter-productive message to the public – that law-abiding are safer and better off without owning firearms. They help to disarm law abiding citizens who have almost zero chance of ever committing a violent crime with a firearm.
Many guns turned in are old, corroded, or damaged and non-functioning guns, and in some cases, fake guns of little value have been turned in for the reward.
Conversely, “Gun Buy-Back” programs also defraud law-abiding citizens who unknowingly turn in valuable firearms, including family heirlooms and collector’s items with historical significance, for a fraction of their value, to be destroyed or stolen by police department personnel. An old widow who is no danger to society, and who has no knowledge of the value of her deceased husband’s firearms, may turn in valuable firearms for destruction or internal theft at pennies on the dollar.
“Gun Buy-Back” programs are typically staged by police departments at the behest of liberal, anti-gun political figures, such as mayors, city council members or aldermen, and politically appointed police chiefs.
That concludes Twenty-One Reasons Why Gun Control Increases Violent Crime.
El Segundo Police Officers' Association (ESPOA) Exposed