Let’s talk hometowns:
In 2014, Chicago, Barack Obama’s hometown, witnessed the lowest homicide rate the city has seen in 56 years. It’s no coincidence that this data was revealed after Chicago was dragged kicking-and-screaming into the age of enlightenment and was forced to loosen their draconian, unconstitutional anti-Second Amendment laws.
On October 1st, 2015, President Obama took to the airwaves to wag his finger and talk of my hometown- Roseburg, Oregon. So, as I watched his comments, my jaw pulsated with clenched teeth as my fists balled with rage. The shooting at Umpqua Community College, a school I attended, hit close to home and witnessing our nation’s first dictator lecture Americans on the supposed need for gun control sickened me.
Obama said a great many things and nearly every single sentence oozed with self-righteousness as he advocated for our nation the kind of “commonsense” gun laws that have, for decades, kept his hometown a warzone of gun-related deaths.
“Somehow this has become routine,” Obama said. “The reporting has become routine. My response here, from this podium, has become routine.”
He’s correct; it has become routine. However, no matter how many times he blames the NRA, no matter how many times he calls for “commonsense” gun laws, one inescapable fact remains: the stats consistently show that yes- more guns= less crime.
In his lecture, Obama huffed and puffed and mocked those who cling to the Constitution and cling to the consistent facts that more guns in the hands of responsible gun owners leads to lessened crime.
“Who believes that?” he asked.
“I hope and pray that I don’t have to come out again during my tenure as president to offer my condolences to families,” Obama said. “But based on my experience as president, I can’t guarantee that — and that’s terrible to say,” he said.
“Who believes that?” Well, for starters, millions of Americans who have the very basic ability to observe.
Let’s start with empirical evidence.
Think of Chicago, New York, Washington, D.C., Newark, South Central Los Angeles. What do they all have in common?
Two things: sky-high crime rates and incredibly-stringent gun control laws.
President Obama and other liberals like to point to Great Britain and opine that gun control works. However, they neglect to mention that guns have, for centuries, not been a part of their culture. Their nation was not born from citizens with guns and their system of civilian disarmament has been in place long before millions of citizens were armed.
However, if we wish for a better idea of what a modern-day program of civilian disarmament would look like for America, the better model would be Mexico- a nation with some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the world and which remains awash in rampant violence as the nation remains hostage to criminals who do not respect the rule of law.
Now that we’ve applied a very basic level of observation, let’s get to the stats:
In late 2012, just prior to the Sandy Hook shooting, a Virginia professor conducted a study to analyze the effects of increasing gun sales to the law-abiding populace. What he found was exactly what Second Amendment advocates have long contended: more guns= less crime.
From 2006 to 2011, the total number of guns purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent, while the total number of gun-related violent crimes decreased 24 percent over that period. And when adjusted for population growth, the number of crimes further decreases to more than 27 percent, with 79 gun-related offenses per 100,000 in 2006 dropping to 57 by 2011.
Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker conducted the analysis at the request of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Baker told the paper that the findings appear to contradict the popular premise that more guns cause more violent crime.
“While there is a wealth of academic literature attempting to demonstrate the relationship between guns and crime, a very simple and intuitive demonstration of the numbers seems to point away from the premise that more guns leads to more crime, at least in Virginia,” said Baker.
Okay, maybe that’s just Virginia, right?
Wrong. Even Obama’s own FBI sees the trend nationally.
More guns equaled less crime in 2012 and in 2013.
This week, the FBI issued a report comparing the numbers of violent and property crimes reported by law enforcement agencies during the first half of 2012 to the numbers reported during the first half of 2013. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports Section, “Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation reported a decrease of 5.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first 6 months of 2013 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2012.”
Aaaaaannnnnndddd in 2014….
According to the FBI, “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape…aggravated assault, and robbery” all showed decreases when the first six months of 2014 were juxtaposed with the first six months of 2013. Murder fell by “6 percent,” rape by “10.1 percent,” aggravated assault dropped “1.6 percent,” and robbery fell by “10.3 percent.”
Offenses of property crime–“burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft”–all decreased during the first six months of 2014 as well, when contrasted with the first six months of 2013. Burglary fell “14 percent,” larceny-theft fell “5.6 percent,” and motor vehicle thefts fell “5.7 percent.”
And what about 2015? Well, it’s funny you should ask because I wrote about that literally yesterday. I won’t give away the ending, but I’ll give you a hint: it’s another stellar year for our thesis of more guns= less crime.
Okay, a couple of years does not prove our theory. Maybe this is all part of that vast right-wing conspiracy, huh?
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), as gun ownership numbers soared from 1993 to 2011, the murder rate plummeted to nearly half of what it was.
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report shows that while gun ownership climbed from 192 million firearms in 1994 to 310 million firearms in 2009, crime fell–and fell sharply.
According to the report, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993. Following the exponential growth in the number of guns, that rate fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000.
This rate rose from 2004 to 2005 and got as high as 3.9 in 2006 and 2007, but it then resumed falling in 2008, the year the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that individual firearm possession is Constitutionally protected–particularly for self-defense. This figure fell to 3.2 per 100,000 by 2011.
In other words, as the number of firearms almost doubled over a nearly 20-year period, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was more than halved.
Additionally, the overall murder rate dropped from 9.0 per 100,000 in 1994 to 4.7 in 2011. The overall number of estimated murder victims fell from 23,326 in 1994 to 14,612 in 2011. For estimated firearms-related murder victims, those numbers are 16,333 in 1994 and 9,903 in 2011.
Finally, let’s just remember that all of this- ALL OF THIS– is irrelevant. We live in a Republic and in a republic, the rule of law is supreme. Not the president. Not Congress. Not even ten million people who get together and demand more gun laws on the step of the Capitol. No- the law is supreme and the law is clearly stated in the Second Amendment.
Don’t like it? Repeal it (but good luck with that).
So, at the end of the day, no matter how many diatribes and temper tantrums Emperor Obama throws, his calls for gun control laws are futile. His duty is to enforce the laws of the Constitution and while he is welcomed to dislike any or all of the rights afforded to Americans, he must bend to the laws of our land or face millions of gun owners who understand that the Second Amendment means a protection of our lives, liberties and our pursuits of happiness.
To witness Obama’s self-righteous diatribe, please scroll to the 23- minute mark.