This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

FBI Data Proves Gun Control Equals More Violent Crime

FBI data proves an unarmed population are more likely to be victims of all sorts of violence.

It’s a bold statement, but the just released 2012 FBI UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting) data proves what is to many, simple common sense. Places with the most restrictive gun laws have higher violent crime rates. Of course, the 2012 FBI UCR does not directly state that conclusion, but combining that data with a state’s Brady Score does.

A Brady Score is calculated by the folks over at The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence based on how many laws a state has, enacts, strengthens or enforces to curb gun ownership. I won’t disparage the motivations of many of these activists, since many have become involved as a result of having been or being related to someone who was a victim of gun crime.

Their goal is a safer world, something to be lauded. However, their premise is at best faulty, their intentions in regard to the Second Amendment are unconstitutional and their tactics are either disingenuous or flat out distortions of common sense, truth and fact. Now, finally, there is unequivocal proof they are simply wrong.

Find out what's happening in Plainfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Rather than go into all the detail, statistics and analysis, or how those statistics were arrived at here, I’ll redirect the curious, or the contentious, to This Ain’t Hell where it is all laid out in both complex and simple layman’s terms.

In short, what that author did was painstakingly go through the 2012 FBI UCR data and compare it to each state’s Brady Score. Specifically, looking at the rates of four categories of crime –  

Find out what's happening in Plainfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

1)      overall violent crime (excluding forcible rape and arson)

2)      murder and non-negligent homicide

3)      robbery

4)      aggravated assault

The conclusions, based on standard, accepted statistical reporting would be shocking to the folks over at the Brady Campaign. In three of the four above categories, it is proven fact that areas with more restrictive gun laws report higher numbers of these crimes.  

While the fourth category, aggravated assault, does not show a clear correlation between stricter gun laws and lower rates of this type of crime, the assumption made is most likely accurate when this type of crime is understood for what it is, an instance fueled by passion, rage or perceived provocation; aggravated assault is not generally a premeditated action. But, since overall violent crime is statistically significantly higher where gun control laws are strictest, there is a logical inference that where the general population may be armed, even in cases of perceived provocation, the event is less likely to end in an act of aggravated assault.

Now that there is proof, independently verifiable numbers, that show gun control laws do not make us safer, will the debate end? Probably not because the retort of the Brady Bunch (thanks This Ain’t Hell for that one) remains, “If there were no guns at all, there would be no gun crime”. My husband’s favorite line “If my Aunt had testicles, she’d be my Uncle” seems equally appropriate.

The argument of the gun control crowd that stricter laws make us all safer has been finally, unequivocally proven false. The argument that access to guns, whether or not the average citizen avails themselves of their rights under the Second Amendment makes us all safer, has been proven true.

Criminals are not affected by stricter laws. They are criminals and not worried about breaking the law. However, they do seem to worry about their intended victims potentially being armed. I won’t credit the criminal mind with the requisite reasoning skills to do a cost benefit analysis of their actions, but they do seem to understand the basic premise that in an area where the average person may be packing, their chances of success without incurring great bodily harm or death are lower. If the idiot bad guys can figure this out, why can’t the supposedly educated law makers and politicians?
We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?