Lawyer Jack D’Aurora penned an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch claiming that gun ownership causes more crime. Here’s two of his quotes:
“Mark Duggan of the University of Chicago estimates that 500,000 guns are stolen annually. Stolen guns mean more gun violence.”
“Some research shows that as guns become more available to law-abiding citizens, crime increases and additional problems are created.”
Since 2001, the average homicide rate for Right-to-Carry (RTC) states–whose liberal laws enable law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns–declined 12.8%, compared to 3.3% for non-RTC states. Moreover, the difference in violent crime rates between RTC and non-RTC states increased over time, as shown in the chart below.
The following chart shows a similar trend for murder.
Moreover, rates have been trending downwards in RTC states while remaining level in non-RTC states.
My research shows that concealed carry licensees are far more law-abiding than the adult non-licensee population, among states reporting convictions. In Texas, non-licensees commit FBI major crimes (e.g. murder, burglary) 9.6 times more often than licensees. Florida, Minnesota and Michigan have similar results.
Bottom line: If the general public were as law-abiding as concealed carry licensees, there would be a 98% drop in FBI major crime, with billions of dollars saved each year in related costs to victims and society. Putting it in context, such savings equals about 40% of a state’s education budget.
Since 2000, Americans have bought over 5 million firearms annually. According to this law lobbyist’s rhetoric, RTC states should be more violent. But that’s the difference between rhetoric and reality.
I do not understand why anyone would find fault with M. D’Aurora’s logic. After all, it is a proven fact that the more autos the public owns, the more auto theft will occur. Similarly, the more liquor stores or banks located in a given city, the more robberies will occur.
Obviously, the means to reducing crime lies in reducing the number of law-abiding citizens and the activities in which they engage.
I’m forced to accept D’Aurora’s argument since I can’t believe that even if a lawyer would say something that isn’t true, no newspaper would print it.
There is no truth in the news and news in the truth. The news can’t even get the weather right. Howard Nemerov is the only fact checking reporter I have ever heard of. He’s right. Gun grabbing attorney wrong. Trust me on that one.
I’m sure he’s a crappy lawyer too.
["Why tell the truth when rhetoric will do?"]
Tell me it ain’t so Howie! Are you accusing lawyers of….not being honest?
IF so, that will not set well with ETAB and other lawyers here on PJM you know! You better be a grabin for your pith helmet and heading for the fox hole…. zig-zag, drop and roll and duck on your way!
MiniTru.
Anybody who lives in the Washington DC area can figure out that on net a large population of gunowners who have the right to both conceal and open carry reduces crime. Northern Virginia is the safest jurisdiction in the DC metro area. The population of NOVA is 2-2.5 time that of DC. It has fewer police per capita.
Contrary to what most people believe, NOVA is not populated exclusively by rich white professionals and federal bureaucrats. There is a long standing gang problem and a heavy presence of the Central American MS-13 transnational criminal organization Manassas area. Despite this you are safe to walk around at night without a significant threat except in a few areas.
One of the ironies of American society is that the states and localities that permit conceal carry are very places where you generally don’t have to do it while gun banning jursidictions like Chicago, Detroit and DC are place where even the best neighborhoods can be less than safe.
So…what does that say about the motives of people who advocate the banning of guns?
I followed the link back to the site to see if there were any replies to my comment.
The cowards have pulled the article – the link exists, but it opens a blank page.