categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

graphics matter, external sources

As regular readers of this weblog are probably more than aware, I am quite fond of using relatively simple graphics to debunk long-standing myths adhered to by anti-rights nuts, including “more guns = more crime” and “more guns = more deaths“. However, no matter how simple and straightforward those graphics may be, they have always been supported by comprehensive research from authoritative sources, straightforward number-crunching that can be done by anyone with a copy of Microsoft Office, and an enduring thirst for the truth.

Unfortunately for me and my slight fame due to those graphics, but fortunately for all freedom-loving Americans, I have been outdone at my own game by none other than Michale Menkus of GeorgiaCarry.org, and his report, “Guns Good, Bans Bad” (*.pdf warning).

Throughout the course of his 26-page report, Mr. Menkus examines not only the trending of aggravated assaults and robberies when laws pertaining to the ownership and carrying of firearms change, but also factors in the relevant economic costs and benefits of such laws based on some recent research conducted by folks at Iowa State University – Ames. Even better, he chooses to focus on such hot-button topics as allowing students to carry firearms on campus (assuming they would be otherwise permitted to do so in public), concealed carry in general, the move from “may issue” to “shall issue”, “School Safety Zones”, handgun bans, bans on “Saturday Night Specials”, and so forth… and, unsurprisingly, at least to those who have been paying attention to the facts, the numbers do not look good for “gun control”.

For example, consider what happened at Colorado State University when they started allowing otherwise-legally-permitted students to carry their sidearms on campus – oh, sure, the usual useful idiots at the Brady Campaign decried the move as the beginning of the end for campus safety, but the numbers clearly show that assault plus robbery rates have “dropped by nearly one-half”:

On the other hand, consider what happened in Chicago, when, in 1982, the ruling class of the city decided to ban all handguns within the city limits – aggravated assault plus robbery rates increased by nearly four times in just three years:

I would not go so far to say that Mr. Menkus has proven a causality between the passing/repealing of “gun control” legislation and the change in crime rates, but I feel quite comfortable in saying that he has demonstrated a not-insignificant connection.

But now for the real clincher… anti-rights nuts enjoy waxing philosophical about how much firearms in the hands of citizens costs society as a whole, what with accidents, negligence, and crime due to those guns (even though, as we already have proven here at this weblog, historically speaking, there is no causal relationship between firearms and firearm-related crime or firearm-related deaths); however, I dare say it is well past time to turn that particular talking point around, and Mr. Menkus beat me to it.

Based on the aforementioned research, and his crunching of the numbers, Chicago’s obviously failed and quite unconstitutional handgun ban (assuming it was responsible for the change in crime rates, which seems valid from all observations of the data) potentially cost the residents of the city over $5,000,000,000… a year. Washington D.C.’s equally-failed and equally-unconstitutional firearm ban likely cost its residents somewhere over $400,000,000 a year.

On the other hand, then-Governor George Bush signing a law allowing Texas residents to lawfully carry firearms (only in a concealed fashion, which still blows my mind) has probably saved the state as much as Chicago lost a year, and Michigan progressing from “may issue” to “shall issue” potentially saved the residents of that state another billion.

And, yes, we are talking about billions, with a “b” and nine zeros – if that is not enough for your ears to perk up and for you to start grasping how much “gun control” is costing our society, I am not sure what is.

I will leave Mr. Menkus’ conclusion to his paper as an enticement for you to actually sit down and read it, but, trust me, it will be time well-spent – far too often, anti-rights nuts make far too much headway with “common sense” platitudes regarding how we pro-rights activists are “putting your children at risk” or “costing society millions”, but, as with so many of their catchy little talking points, those “arguments” are nothing more than specious speculation without a shred of evidence to support them. Now, we have evidence, we have the numbers, and we have pretty solid documentation of what “gun control” has cost certain areas here in America… it will be of no use against those borderline-cultists who are convinced that more legislation and tighter restrictions are the cure to everything, but for those fence-sitters out there who are still considering the sides… well, $5 billion is $5 billion.

(Note: All graphics and direct quotes were shamelessly stolen borrowed from the report “Guns Good, Bans Bad“, with the author’s express permission. Please do not replicate, copy, or repost them without his permission.)

3 comments to graphics matter, external sources

  • Matthew R

    Here’s the thing, even if legally carried handguns were not the reason that crime dropped (that’s what anti’s would say because they don’t have a better reason), they didn’t cause crime to go up. Therefore if crime didn’t go up, then why should we restrict something that doesn’t do any harm?

  • ZK

    @ Matthew R:
    BECAUSE GUNS ARE SCARY AND EVIL AND THE PEOPLE WHO CARRY THEM ARE WACKOS!

    Glad I could sort that out for you.

  • @ Matthew R: Quite true! And, on the flip side, when “gun control” legislation was passed, crime did not decrease, as was predicted by the anti-rights nuts.

    So why are we limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens with legislation that obviously does not work?

    Then again, we are expecting people ruled by fear and emotion to actually exercise logic and reason… fat chance of that happening.

    @ ZK: Simple enough, right? ;)