Do More Guns Lead to More Violent Crime?

Right on cue, doctors around the country are zeroing in on gun violence. Like every other scientific discipline, medical professionals have been brainwashed to believe that science holds all of the answers to life’s mysteries. Like good empiricists, these doctors are convinced that lab work and statistical data are the best indicators of why sociopaths act sociopathically.

Want to know some of the stunning evidence that they have found? I thought you might. One interesting bit of wisdom is that gun ownership is a precursor to gun violence. Wow. In a nation of gunowners, where it is estimated that the number of guns is between 260-300 million (it is probably even higher than this), it is somehow statistically relevant that gun ownership precedes gun violence. This fact is about as helpful as the fact that car ownership tends to precede auto fatalities, or that home ownership precedes house fire deaths; one does not predict the other. Gun ownership has nothing to do with gun violence. If it did, it would be far more significant of a number and the relationship would be much stronger.

For example, it has been estimated that one-third of American homes have guns (again, the number is probably much higher). The FBI estimates that two-thirds of all homicides are committed with guns, yet only 9% of violent crimes actually involve guns. This is highly significant. A homicide is a violent crime where a death results. This would fall into the 9% category. However, attempted homicide, robberies, carjackings, domestic disputes, gang violence, etc, that involve guns also are a part of that 9%. This means that 89% of violent crime does not involve a gun. In a nation where guns number almost 1:1 of the population, this lack of correlation is much more important than the miniscule relationship where they do seem to correlate.

It should be incredibly surprising to most readers how little guns actually contribute to violent crime despite the outcry from the media and these medical doctors. It’s almost as if more guns discourage gun violence, rather than promote it; and this is precisely what pro-gun and Second Amendment advocates have been saying all along.

Rather than blaming the gun, perhaps doctors should be focusing on the people. Without seeing the data, I can confidently predict that 100% of violent crimes involve people. Of those 100%, every one of them had parents. This seems to be a much stronger predictor than gun ownership: having parents always precedes violent crime. In fact, having parents is a precursor to any kind of crime, not only violent ones. This is the real epidemic. Why can’t these doctors see this as the real problem? Jonathan Swift may have been on to something when he modestly proposed that poor parents should sell their children for food. This would not only reduce hunger, it would stimulate the economy and lower violent crime. It is all very scientific.

Just like Joycelyn Elder’s brilliant pronouncement about needing “safer guns” and “safer bullets,” these doctors are making the wrong connection between guns and violent crime. Guns don’t increase violent crime; they decrease it. The same data that doctors are using to make their case against guns is actually proving the opposite. But, of course, this is because the data is strictly a tool. It’s never been about what is fact and what is not; it’s all about the ideology. Anti-gun activists are not interested in data that doesn’t support their case, so they twist the information instead, making it appear to say something that it most certainly does not. This is neither scientific nor honest. It is nothing but political propaganda, being delivered by a “trusted authority” in a white lab coat. Don’t believe the hype: Guns don’t cause violent crime, people cause violent crime.