moonbattery logo

Nov 29 2012

2 + 2 Is Still 4, As if That Matters to Moonbats

No matter how many times you add 2 and 2, you will always get 4. The results are similarly predictable when you analyze the relation between gun ownership and 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.

To the extent that thoroughly discredited premise is “popular,” it is because it is relentlessly promoted by the authoritarian liberals who control the governmedia. Not only has it been disproven repeatedly, but it makes no sense. Criminals will always have guns regardless of the law. Why would permitting law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in accordance with their Constitutional rights cause an increase in crime?

Baker examined data from the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center, which tracks the number of gun transactions for every federally licensed Virginia firearm dealer, to state crime data from 2006 to 2011. That data demonstrated that an increase in gun purchases one year was often followed by a decrease in gun crime the next year.

“So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime,” Baker concluded, noting that the data is “pretty overwhelming.”

However, no amount of data will dissuade liberals, because as leftist radicals used to openly admit, the issue is never the issue. We aren’t really talking about crime; we are talking about the ability of the population to defend itself from its increasingly malevolent collectivist rulers.

Similarly, no amount of data proving that subsidizing poverty creates more poverty will put a dent in liberal support for an ever-expanding welfare state, because the issue is not alleviating the plight of the poor, but increasing dependence on government.

In both cases, the goal is the same: to create a population of helpless victims, utterly dependent on the State.

more-guns-less-crime
Obviously.

On a tip from AC.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on Facebook


  • TED
  • dan

    … should’t we have knife permits ?

    Top cause of death for children : automobile accidents

  • StanInTexas

    How did those gun free zones work out in Aurora? Or on college campuses?

    Or better yet Liberals, how about we take away your car because someone in your city drove drunk and killed someone?

    If you think owning a gun is not a Right, but abortion is… then you might be a Liberal.

  • Mr Evilwrench

    Obviously, correlation /= causation, but there is no way to read the opposite into the data, ie more guns = more crime, and this experience has been repeated, and held consistent, over and over. It saddens me, for the many otherwise normal people of IL to live in a state that’s operated on such a set of delusional premises. Almost as much as it saddens me to see the media/government complex present their delusions as truth, to be bought into by the consumers of their excretions.

  • JustAl

    One thing I’ve never understood. The second amendment not only limits infringement by the federal government, but infringement period. Yet both ends of the republicrat party bow obediently to states and cities that openly wipe their butts with the second amendment.

    How can any congressman or POTUS claim to be for the Constitution and not bring the full weight of the federal government down on any government agency or even organization that infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

  • http://newrebeluniv.wordpress.com Professor Hale

    It makes more sense when you split the data by demographic. Then BOTH parties are correct. White rural people with more guns see less crime. Black urban people with more guns see more crime. But pointing that out is Raciss.

  • Sam Adams

    Professor Hale says:
    November 29, 2012 at 7:59 am

    It makes more sense when you split the data by demographic. Then BOTH parties are correct. White rural people with more guns see less crime. Black urban people with more guns see more crime. But pointing that out is Raciss.
    ____________

    You want to provide a reference there, Herr Professor? What studies have been done on black urban people with more guns?

  • AC

    Hale is not accounting for the fact that law-abiding black citizens living in urban poverty can often not afford the cost of guns, ammo, training, and concealed carry license fees.

    Therefore, the gun owners in urban areas tend to be criminals.

    Laws against so-called “Saturday Night Specials” were designed to run up the price of guns to keep them out of the hands of blacks. These laws are racist. See: No Guns for Negroes from JPFO

    Concealed carry permit fees deter law-abiding citizens of limited means from protecting themselves when the police fail. These fees should be abolished.

    When you are working hard at two jobs and barely making ends meet, the $117 required to get Florida’s carry permit is an infringement on your ability to bear arms.

  • Sam Adams

    AC says:
    November 29, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Hale is not accounting for the fact that law-abiding black citizens living in urban poverty can often not afford the cost of guns, ammo, training, and concealed carry license fees.
    ____________

    Amen and amen.

    Saturday Night Specials were small caliber firearms that didn’t appeal to the criminal element, but were a reasonable form of protection for working poor blacks. Criminals, no matter how bad they appear, don’t like the prospect of being shot with a .22 by some cleaning lady.

    Historically, gun laws were designed to keep blacks defenseless. They are, indeed, racist.

  • IslandLifer

    More likely to be killed by hands and feet than rifle or shotgun…

  • IslandLifer
  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Plus many cities have their very own restrictive gun laws to boot
    What these cities do is deprive the law abiding black population the tools they require to “deter” the crime being committed right in front of them
    The only options left are to barricade themselves in, or move.
    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

  • AC

    Criminals are not particularly price sensitive when it comes to firearms. Drug dealers can afford to buy the good stuff. Thugs and bandits acquire the good stuff during the course of burglaries.

  • Dr. 9

    I’m always amused by how leftists try to equate the number of legal guns owned to the crime rate, when they know of course that, legal guns do not contribute to the crime rate enough to even move the needle.

    The bottom line here is, the left “will never” stop trying to disarm “legally-armed” Americans. They’ve been at it for generations, and there’s no sign that they’ll stop, even though they know full-well when all the violence comes from.

    BTW-1, watch out for the coming UN anti-arms treaty that is now being worked on. And yes, the Muslim-in-Chief and his official hag Hitlary, are totally on board with the UN making our gun laws.

    BTW-2, keep in mind that under our laws, a treaty has more legal weight than a Constitutional amendment.

  • http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/ Billll

    It’s not about guns, it’s about control. Also it’s not citizens and criminals shooting each other that interests them, it’s that the 2nd was originally written with politicians in mind.

  • KHarn

    Every time this comes up, I am reminded of the Florida National Guard armory that was looted of weapons including RECOILESS RIFLES back in the sixtys.

    How are to control THAT, regressives?

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy