Every time there is a mass shooting, gun control advocates come out of the woodwork, calling for more gun control. They repeat the same old rhetoric that guns are responsible for violence and if we had more and stricter gun control laws, it would slow the violence.
So, let’s look at some examples to see if they are right.
In 1996, newly elected Prime Minister John Howard of Australia pushed for stricter gun control. That year the Australian Parliament passed the National Firearms Agreement which banned the private ownership of all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump action shotguns. The new law also established more restrictions in the licensing of other firearms.
According to the National Firearms Agreement private citizens were forced to turn over the banned weapons in a government buyback system. Beginning on October 1, 1966 through September 30, 1997, the Australian government spent $500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns. Howard and other politicians promised the citizens of Australia that they would be safer now that these horrible weapons had been taken off the streets.
However, that was not the case!
Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.
- Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
- Home invasions increased by 21%.
- Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
- Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.
Here in the US, Baltimore and Chicago both have strict gun control laws and yet they both have high gun violence and murder rates. It seems that each year, Chicago sees more and more gun violence and their Democratic leaders continue to just scratch their heads, blame everyone else including the police and then call for more strict gun control laws.
Great Britain also has strict gun control laws and violence there is causing many to push for the arming of more police.
Another prime example of strict gun control laws is Mexico. As one source defined it:
“Mexico’s gun controls are strict and, when enumerated, read like a wish list for U.S. Senate Democrats.”
If a Mexican citizen wants to legally own a gun, they have to jump through more legal hoops than the citizens of Chicago, Baltimore or Washington DC. They begin by applying for a license to own a gun. That license requires a background check that is far more thorough than anything Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg or Mom Demands Action have even considered.
The background check looks into the person’s mental and criminal history as well as their physical health and any past or current drug addiction. Accompanying the license application, the person must submit their birth certificate, government issued identification, government issued social security number, a statement from their local attorney general testifying to the fact that they have a clean criminal record, a current utility bill with address, a letter from their current employer confirming they have a job. With all of that, they also have to provide a justifiable reason for wanting or needing a gun.
If the license is issued, any and all guns owned or purchased by the individual must be properly registered with the Mexican government. Oh yeah, only guns that are approved by the Mexican government are allowed to be purchased by private citizens:
“Civilians are not allowed to possess weapons of war, including automatic firearms; sub-machine guns; machine guns; .357 Magnum revolvers and those greater than .38 caliber; handguns greater than 9 mm; rifles and carbines of .223, 7mm, 7.62 and .30 calibers; or shotguns with barrels shorter than 635 mm or greater than 12 gauge.”
If a Mexican citizen is issued a license and legally purchases a gun, they are not allowed to carry it in public. To do so, they must go through another application and approval process that requires more documentation including character recommendations from a third party.
WOW! If gun control advocates are right, then Mexico should be a very safe country. However, their murder rate is more than five times higher than that of the United States:
“In fact, Mexico is so dangerous that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) lists Mexico as second only to Syria when it comes to ‘armed conflict.’ And when you think about the fact that Syria is a war-torn nation, ravaged by years of unchecked civil war, the amount of violence required to rank Mexico as number two is breathtaking.”
The standard response to this by gun control advocates is that most of the violence in Mexico is due to the drug cartels and illegal drug trafficking. My response is the only reason the drug cartels are so powerful is because most of the citizens are unarmed and not able to protect themselves.
History has shown in nations with very strict gun control or gun bans, only criminals and militant groups are armed and powerful, while the citizens are left as defenseless victims. The next time you hear someone hollering for more gun control to cut violence ask the about Chicago, Baltimore, Australia Great Britain and Mexico. Ask them why stricter gun control laws in those places have not curbed violence but only help escalate it?