If gun control advocates were fully rational they would approach tge proposition the same way an engineer approaches a prospective project, with a cost benefit analysis.
Give a civil engineer a project, a hydro project that will flood 63,000 acres, 100 square miles, to a mean depth of 97 feet, and in a couple of hours they will come back wih an estimate of how many acres can be irrigated out of the catchment, hom many thousands of concrete for the dam and spillway, and so on – along with a ballpark estimate of costs and benefits.
Give a gun control advocate, particularly one of the academics that infest TV studios, a chance to talk about the costs and benefits of gun control, and they pull a Sgt. Schultz on the audience. “I know nozzing.”
I watched on a few ago and the poor fish finally admitted crime has been declining, but he did not know the starting year, the amount of decline, or why 50 States and the District of Columbia’s crime rates started back up at almost exactly the same rate as 1963 in 2013.
But oh yes, he just knew that gun control is the answer to all our problems. Between him and the emcee , host, they probably agreed that gun control would cure acne before the segment was over.
Here in the real world, we have plenty of evidence to show what gun controls do, both in general and in a particularly demographic group. And gun gun control has definite costs, as well.
In general, the mean 10 year increase in violent crime rates, a combination of murder, rape, robbery, and what we used to call “assault with a deadly weapon” resulting from either a gun control campaign or a gun control law is a 245 percent increase in violent crime.
The cost of gun control on the murder rate is a bit higher,, but there was so much cutting crime with an earaser until the mid 198- that an absolute estimate is very difficult. It appears the number of murder victims went from 8,640 in 1963 to a print media reported total of 34,720 in 1973, a 502% increase in murder in just ten years.
However, OFFICIALLY, Law Enforcement Agencies reported only 19.640 murders to the FBI so OFFICIALLY the 10 year increase in murder was only a 227 poercent increase in the annual murder total over the first ten years.
You can verify the numbers given here either in the original bout FBI Uniform Crime Reports or at the spreadsheet at this link.
Those percentages of increase are quite represenative of the results of restrictive gun laws the world around. The increase is somewhat grater in ties of economic uncertainty or societal stress, but the educated person should be able to predict the trends if not the “height of hte mouthan” of violentce resulting from gun control.
You can also check out the dollar cost of gun control for the 50 States and the District of Columbia by searching for (STATE): The Cost Of Gun Ctonrl, as in Virginia, the ccost of gun control for a conservative estimate of that STate’s actual cost of gun control.
With that, here is the United States homicide rate from 1880 to present. Every time you see a sharp increase in homicide you are looking at the telltale sign of a restrictive gun law = and the red columns track toe results of the current gun ban lobbies activity:
The fact is that even if gun conrol worked as its backers claim, it would still cost lives and an enormous amought of money. And wen gun c ontrol fails to do anything good advocates demand even more gun controls and the crime and violence that come with them.