There Is A Reason the LV Tragedy Gained Little Support For Gun Control

I see one of the struggling “news magazines” is wringing its editorial hands over the failure of most Americans to change their opposition to “gun control.”

Since I have absolutely no intention of delaying that rag’s demise, I will neither quite them, link them, nor name them. But they seem to haaave their bowel in an uproar because there have not been hundreds of marches to support banning all guns.

There is a reason. Most Americans have become aware of restritive gun laws total faailure to deliver the promised benefits. Or any benefits.

Consider the chart immediately below. I have not had time to update the cahrt, so it is complete, and made with data taken from FBI, DOJ, and Census Bureau publications.

There have been three major fits of gun control fever in the United States, the first resulting from labor violence in the 1904-1906 period; the second resulting from the Entertainment industry’s 1963 gun ban campaign, and the third and smallest beginning in 2013, with a million dollars a month form billionaire Michael Bloomberg. The results of the first tow are quite clear, and the third will be obvious win 2016 is added to the chart:

Tje 30 year decline from 1933 tp 1963 was a result of some softening of very strict and utterly useless gun laws, but primarily due to relaxed enforcement of those laws.

The decline after 1993 was a result of widespread of adoption of “Must Issue License To Carry” laws, which made it difficult for predatory criminals to choose a safe victim.

The sharp reduction in the rate of decline came in 1998, when gun control advocates, who had been waiting for “bacckground checks to put an end to crime” saw the founders “Great intent? The intent is that every man be armed* was likely to become a reality.

Now, turning to the 2015 crime rates, the convenient spreadsheet maintained by the Disaster Center gives the FBI crime numbers back to 1960.

2014 was the inception year for Bloomberg’s gun ban campaign. Compared to 2013, the last year prior to our efforts to cut crime being neutralized by Bloomberg’s ban campaign:

Murder was up from 14,319 to 17.17,250 a 17 percent increase.

Rape was up from 82,109 to 95,730. a 17% increase.

The Aggravated assault total has 745,095 to 803,007, a 7.2 percent increase.

And concealed Carry laws have reduced robbery totals from 345,095 to 332,198, a modest 4 percent decline made over Bloomberg’s best efforts to impose restrictive gun laws.

And finally, the three the third attack of gun control fever, based on the deliberate lie that we are in the midst of soaring violent crime rates, has proven to be as much a failure

Since the majority of Americans know the truth about gun control, going back to the days when gun control had majority support will be tough.

And it will be all the tough if gun control support results in a flod of letters, phone calls, and e-mails citing the facts hit every elected official, editor, columnist, or flake who proposed driving crime rates up with gun control is the only result.

Stranger

About Stranger

A collaborative effort, Extranos Alley is primarily concerned with providing up to date data on the relationships between privately woned firearms and crime, violence, and politics. The site is maintained by nine volunteers who have given up their identity that the work here may be considered without regard to the individual data. The contributors are a diverse group, ranging from a retired physicist to a board certified psychologist.
This entry was posted in GUN CONTROL ACTIVISTS. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to There Is A Reason the LV Tragedy Gained Little Support For Gun Control

  1. 2aguy says:

    Stranger…..just found this…Mark Steyn, not a stupid guy or one prone to conspiracy theories, believes there may be some merit to the idea the Vegas shooters was pushing gun control….before you may scoff at the idea…..try out Steyn’s thoughts…

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/22026/possible-las-vegas-motive-only-mark-steyn-talking-tyler-dahnke

  2. Wu Chang says:

    Deep down in each person, they recognize that some day they may need a defensive weapon to protect their family and themselves.

    They may not want a weapon now but they reserve the right to obtain one when or if , in their opinion, it is needed.

    Not all the gum bumping by those who wish to disarm the American public can dispel the right to self defense as being a basic tenet of civilization.

    Those who say the 2nd amendment pertains to flintlocks etc are more than welcome to obtain such–just like those that say we need to spend more $$’s on some socialist program are free to donate their money to said boondoggle

    I will keep my current self defense items and keep my money in my own pocket…thank you very much.

  3. Wu Chang says:

    Another article that eloquently states the propaganda that needs to be confronted

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/

  4. Stranger says:

    Thanks for the link, Wu Chang. The major problem debating anything remotely political with the left od yjsy “Marx was infallible.” And by extension Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and all the rest were infallible. All the above said only the State should have firearms, so of course, they come to the discussion table with the fixed idea that a total ban on guns was ordered by God, and you cannot reason them out of it. It makes no difference how many times something has failed God will return from the dead and fix the problem if we just try a gun ban one more time.

  5. Stranger says:

    Hi Bill: Personally, I have looked at every motive ascribed to another active killer anywhere in the world, and when they are applied to Stephen Paddock, none pass the smell test. No, Paddock was no more than usually crazy, and in his case it was gambling, not mass murder.

    He took pains to get the girlfriend out of the way, He trusted said GF with most of his remaing funds. And he did not plan to be killed, he planned to get away and do it again next year.

    Faced with a new set of conditions, and with a guy who seems to have done the work of three or four whil making himself a part of a casino’s furniture, we need another reason. By far the most plausible theory is that he had help – and that he was paid in some form.

    Beyond that, I cannot say. But if a ever clearly identified, all else is speculation.

    S

  6. Stranger says:

    Thanks, Wu Chang. Since I have been up for more than 40 hours now, I will check it out after a nap.

    S

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.