I keep asking the gun prohibitionists, gun haters, cowards, the paranoid prone and the little children who need somebody else to protect them where has gun control worked? Give me a restrictive gun control law or intervention and proof it caused a reduction of crime, murder, rape, suicide, robbery anything or reduced the supply of guns to criminals.
I get an idiotic response of Japan which is a country not a law or intervention. The start of Japan’s police state was the decree of Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1588 and started one of the worst excesses of violence Japan has ever suffered.
Is that proof enough that weapons restriction are not a good thing for citizens to support? Hideyoshi was at least honest about his reasons. “The people in the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms or other arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and tends to foment uprisings... Therefore the heads of provinces, official agents and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the Government.”
They will not be the first to go on a quest to find this mythical success of gun control. They might look to Jamaica - no that will not do. Then closer to home Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia or Zimbabwe, hmm no not those either. Maybe we can find one in the 25,000 laws in the USA?
The CDC had it funding cut by congress for abusing public money producing patently false gun control research and propaganda. In order to restore that funding the CDC review team undertook a study of gun laws and interventions. The report is freely available but hardly known. First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Early Childhood Home Visitation and Firearms Laws.
The shattering conclusion? “In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”
Not to be out done the National Academy of Sciences undertook an even larger study which included a selection of the known research, books, laws and interventions, The National Academy Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms, law and Justice published this little known and ignored research. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004). The result of that exhaustive research? Exactly the same, not one success.
In the late 1970s Wright, Rossi and Daley undertook a comprehensive review of all the available American literature pertaining to weapons, crime and violence. Some of the main issues examined include, whether or not a causal link between private civilian firearm ownership and violent crime can be demonstrated, the alleged deterrent effect of civilian gun ownership, the intrinsic lethality of firearms and the effect of weapons control legislation on violent crime. After surveying the available evidence, Wright, Rossi and Daley concluded that most of the research was marred by severe methodological shortcomings and on the whole, the evidence was inconclusive.
Then in 1982 the US government conducted research, it was contracted to James Wright and Peter Rossi who undertook this ground breaking research. Wright and Rossi's findings support the claim that civilians armed with firearms constitute a significant deterrent to the criminally inclined. These results imply that restrictions imposed on civilian ownership of firearms in order to reduce incidents of violent crime, would be counter-productive. Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America's 20,000 gun control laws had reduced criminal violence.
There are twenty one self-defence with a gun studies which have been done in the US, everyone of them shows the effectiveness of armed defence, the only point of debate is how good it is.
While it may be said the excursionists have noted that most studies have pointed out the poor quality of research and conclusions simply point to the certainly that more study by better researchers using sound methodologists will get the results they know are there waiting to be found. How much more research is required to satisfy them when there is not even the faintest glimmer of hope?
They are looking for the impossible in order to justify their belief because if they cannot it would make them really oppressive people willing to trample the rights of others without valid proof. Of being responsible for an untold number of deaths, suffering and misery which is far to horrible for them to admit.
Maybe one day they will figure out that they are part of the problem, not the solution. How anyone believes these lies is a mystery but they do.