Puttin' A Cap in the Rearend of Crime

Fire of Liberty

Alvaro Vargas Llosa has a great article over at Tech Central Station on why some 65% of the voting public in Brazil rejected a government sponsored gun ban referendum. Based on Llosa's piece, it looks like their are a lot of smart folks in Brazil who understand that guns are not the problem but are really the best safeguard against criminals that roam the streets searching for their next victim. As most observers of crime know, criminals are less likely to break into a house, rob a particular store, or attack someone if they know they run the risk of being gunned down by the folks they're intending on hurting. But if they know a specific city, country, or state has a ban on the usage and purchasing on said firearms, then they're will be bedlam in the streets and skyrocketing crime rate. Probably one of the best sources on this well known fact is John R. Lott Jr., AEI scholar and expert on gun control and crime, who has pointed out time and time again, that when the citizens are robbed of their rights to defend themselves via a government sponsored gun ban, they see the community they live in fall into disarray via criminals run amuck (Look at Washington D.C., San Francisco and New York City at what happens when you put a curb on guns). Just look at what he noted in his most recent Op/Ed in Canada's National Post:

The experiences of the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69%: Robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to 1993 levels. The crooks still had guns, but not their victims.

The immediate effect of Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations was similar. Crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74%.

Outside of Canada and Europe, skepticism of gun-control laws' effectiveness is widespread. It was the major reason why Sunday's referendum to ban guns in Brazil was defeated by an almost two-to-one vote. Despite progressively stricter gun-control laws in that country, murder rates rose every year from 1992 to 2002. As in the U.K., the regulations simply tilted the balance of power in favour of criminals.

What more interesting is that if these countries who think they can fight crime by just restricting the purchase and ownership of firearms would just follow the lead of the 37 states within the US that allow its law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns have seen the crime rates drop significantly. In fact if you look at the various states that have experienced an enormous growth rate in gun ownership they have also seen the biggest drop in crime. I guess the criminals in these areas have found a fast train out town because Granny May, Uncle Mack, Pete the plumber, Nate the mechanic or Sally the nurse are ready to bust a cap in their rear if they try to do their dirty work. Once again if people are given a choice between giving up their rights to protect themselves via a firearm ban and leaving the crime fighting to a gaggle of politicians who fail to go after the criminals by active policing the street and a crackdown on criminals or retaining such rights, you have folks going to the polls rejecting the government's ban on firearms. When more folks in the world start thinking like the folks in the US, and Brazil did most recently, they will find life better and more secure.