Someone aat The Hill who has not done his or her hoomework asks “what would happen if we had serious gun control.
Thee are two serious consequences to “serious gun control,” political and criminal. On the political side, cracking a history book will show that Socialist States that ban guns become totalitarian dictatorships within 14 years. Russia, Germany, Italy, and so on make fine examples. and Venezuela is a conteemporary example.
On the criminal side, restrictive gun laws have invariablly sent actual violent crime rates soaring. Our own national and individual state crime statistics are easy to obtain, and clearly show crime rates rise when restrictive gun laws are imposed, and fall when restrictive laws are relaxes.
Even Massachusetts, whose principal city has never stopped manipulating the crme statistics, clearly shows the effect of gun control, starting in 1998:
Starting at the left edge, you see the effects of the entertainment industry’s gun ban campaign starting in 1963, followed by State and National gun control laws, temporarily peaking in 1973 and ’74. Some changes in laws and enforcement practices resulted in some minor reductions until Handgun Control’s Assault Weapons Ban campaign caused another rise in homicide and violent crime rates.
That rise peaked at 249 in 1992, and resulted in Bay State residents changing their gun buying habits, changing from hunting and target guns to defensive guns.
That result was a precipitous decline in crime, particularly violent crime. Which lasted until some genius decided to help out by imposing strict gun controls. And you can see the results, rise in crime rates as more and more Massachusetts residents disposed of their guns, and the criminal underworld saw crime as an increasingly safe and pleasant lifestyle.
Then, at the right end, Boston got a software program intended to track crime, and began using it to ease crime reports.
And tat is what happens when “serious gun controls” are imposed. Each time and every time. As teh author of The Hill’s item missed.