The Brady Campaign, an anti gun rights organization, has rankings of gun control laws in each state. Interestingly, the states with the strictest gun control laws don’t seem to be doing well when it comes their murder and crime rates:
Low crime rates and lax gun control laws
North Dakota had exactly 2 murders in 2008, and both of them were committed using knives. Despite the fact that not a single North Dakota resident was murdered with a gun, the Brady Campaign gave North Dakota a 4/100 score, which ranks it in 44th place (out of the 50 states). While it is true that North Dakota has a relatively low population, compared to many other states, its murder rate is extremely low (and gun-related murders are non-existent) while its gun control laws are very lax.
The state of Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun control laws, and even allows concealed carry without a permit. Vermont also has very low murder and crime rates. However the Brady Campaign gave Vermont only 9 out of a possible 100 points in their gun control ratings.
High crime rates and abundant gun control laws
Compare that with California, which ranks first in the Brady Campaign’s rankings. California has just about every gun control law imaginable, yet criminals still use guns to kill innocent citizens in rather high numbers.
Similarly, Illinois ranks 9th, and has some rather restrictive gun control laws, yet no shortage of gun related crimes and murders. Illinois is also home to Cook County, which has its own ban on so-called “assault weapons”. Within Cook County is the city of Chicago, which also has another layer of gun control laws, including an outright ban on handgun ownership. Despite all these gun control laws and outright bans on gun ownership, Chicago is the murder capitol of the United States.
The point
Guns don’t cause crime, otherwise I would be quite the criminal, given the many guns that I own. Instead, crime is caused by poverty, mental illness, lack of anger management skills, the desire to make a quick buck, and evil people that enjoy hurting others. Such criminals, especially those bent on killing as many people as they can before committing suicide, are not deterred by laws, including gun control laws. That is why we have seen, time and time again, that “gun free zones” turn into slaughter zones, where innocent people are mowed down by criminals that ignore the law against having a gun, as cities with handgun bans (such as Chicago and D.C.) have taken turns as the murder capitols of this country.
The best solution to crime is armed citizens, who can stop rapists, stop murders, stop racist attackers, stop bank robbers, and stop armed robbers. While it is true that not all crime could be prevented by armed citizens, such armed citizens are in a much better position to defend themselves than unarmed citizens, and armed citizens tend to be extremely law abiding themselves, rather than a threat to pubic safety.
A tip of my hat to Of Arms & the Law.
Why did I not check the Brady web page before I moved to California… Now I’m stuck.
Not knowing too much about the reasons for the laws in the US, my question is: are the laws in the more violent states stricter as a result of the violence, and less strict as a result of a lack of violence?
Or could it be that because of the strictness in the violent states the desire to own a gun goes up?
Rezbi
Just wanted to let you know I like your site and have linked back to it and social bookmarked it.
Rezbi,
It is incredibly difficult to say why a particular law is passed, and even more difficult to make such a determination when it comes to multiple laws in multiple states. Legislators may vote in favor of a bill due to a desire to pander to voters, to make lobbyists happy, as a bargain to ensure passage of a bill that they like, and many other reasons that don’t really related to the proported goal of the legislation. Take a look at this video clip to see what I mean: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/10/14/the-anatomy-of-a-gun-control-law-video-clip/
That said, I would guess that many gun control laws are passed by politicians who are seeking a quick fix to the problem of crime, or who fear for their political careers if they don’t quickly act to “do something” in the wake of a particularly violent crime. Either way, such gun control laws have proven rather ineffective, as we can see by the high crime in areas with the strictest gun control laws:
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/30/the-flawed-reasoning-behind-gun-free-zones/
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/10/14/pflegers-anti-gun-eulogy-for-kiyanna-salter-ignores-reality/
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/06/04/the-district-of-columbia-an-example-of-failed-gun-control/
Gun control laws won’t work until criminals start obeying the law. Just as having a law against murder won’t prevent criminals from committing that crime, telling criminals they can’t have guns just means that criminals have another law to ignore.
Hi,
I hope you go and take a look at my reply to you.
I was only joking.