It’s no coincidence that the gun control debate in America is renewed after every mass shooting. While 99% of the gun deaths in this country can’t be attributed to these mass murders, we only hear calls for gun control after the other 1%.
Why? Because the tragedy of a mass shooting elicits a much more emotional response than reading about a gang shooting in Chicago over the weekend. Of course, basing gun control policies around preventing mass shootings doesn’t do much to reduce gun violence, but let’s assume our government wanted to pass sweeping gun control legislation, something that would ban all guns.
(I should note that such a thing is near-impossible, but this is a thought construct, so please bear with me)
Would that work? We can look at what happened in the United Kingdom when the country banned all handguns in 1997. While violent crime & murder (particularly gun murder) fell by 50% in the U.S. since 1997, the U.K. now has three times the violent crime than the U.S.
But wait, a liberal will say at this point, the U.K. does have far fewer gun homicides than America. In fact, in most years there are fewer than fifty, compared to roughly 10,000 in the U.S. How could one argue that gun control doesn’t work in the face of such statistics?
Simple, is the correct reply. Just look at the U.K. before the country implemented gun control. As you’ll find, the nation has had almost no gun violence during any point in its history, yet as soon as they banned guns, we began to see gun violence actually increase. But why did the U.K. always have lower gun crime than us?
For a fantastic explanation of how liberals skew the gun stats, watch this fantastic video below:
by ThePoliticalInsider.com
