The Truth About Guns and Crime

So gun sales are up 50% since November 4th and just before when it looked more and more like Obama would win the election. In my previous article on the difference between a citizen and a subject, we explored the reason why people are afraid, but now let's look at some of the reactions to this article reporting on the increased gun sales.

Thomas Mannard works with the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. Let me make this abundantly clear, violence against the innocent citizens of this nation with ANY weapon from fists to hijacked airplanes is reprehensible and plain wrong. But, it is also the right of every person to defend their lives against those who would try to deprive them of their sacred rights to Life and Liberty. And as the saying goes, never bring a knife to a gunfight. So when Joe Perp breaks through your front door at 11:30 pm, or walks up to your car to jack you with his 9mm, you really shouldn't try to fend him or his bullets off with harsh language and holding up your hands. The only person that that even remotely works against is Dracula. We are strong in the Lord!. (Sorry, I couldn't resist, and for those of you who didn't get this joke, watch Bram Stoker's Dracula).

Thomas Mannard has come out in that previously mentioned article as saying "More guns definitely equal more death." Really? They do? Someone should tell the people in Washington D.C. that.

Let's do a quick comparison, shall we?

Washington D.C. has, as of a 2007 report: 588,292 citizens with a violent crime rate of 1414.3 per 100,000 citizens, and 4913.9 per 100,000 citizens in property crimes (including auto theft and burglary). With nearly 600,000 citizens, that means that there were, on average for the 2007 year, 8,485.8 Murders, Rapes, Aggravated Assaults, and Robbery as well as 29,483.4 Burglaries, Larceny-thefts, Motor Vehicle Thefts, and Arsons. Grand total? 37969.2 crimes reported in 2007 in Washington D.C.

Now for the sake of comparing apples to apples, let's look at the crime rate in El Paso Texas, which has a population of 616,029 (according to the exact same FBI run survey for 2007). El Paso, according to the survey, has a violent crime rate of 418 per 100,000 citizens, and 3201 per 100,000 citizens worth of property crime rate. Doing out the math, that comes to 2508 Murders, Rapes, Aggravated Assaults, and Robbery as well as 19206 Burglaries, Larceny-thefts, Motor Vehicle Thefts, and Arsons. Grand total for El Paso? 21714 crimes reported in 2007 in El Paso TX.

What's the difference? Why is it so disparate? With a 30,000 person population difference, the law of average dictates, nay, REQUIRES the city of El Paso to have more crimes. So why, in 2007, were there approximately 16,000 crimes LESS than in Washington D.C.? Let's look at some fundamental differences between Washington D.C. and El Paso.

First and foremost, El Paso is in Texas. Texas, along with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee, have adopted 'Castle Doctrines' which hearkens back to the days of merry old England (not that it was ever 'merry' in England) in which, in English Common Law of the 1700's states:

"And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles (believes or treats) it his castle, and will never suffer (allow) it to be violated with immunity . . . (Latin Text dating back to the Roman writer Tully) that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case."

So what does this mean? Simply put, it means that while otherwise in 1700's England you weren't allowed to pull out your flintlock pistol and shoot someone, if they barged into your home and you were defending it, you were perfectly in your rights.

In the United States, this 'Castle Doctrine' was expanded in 1895 by the court case Beard v. U.S. (158 US 550) in which the decision was made "A man assailed on his own grounds, without provocation, by a person with a deadly weapon and apparently seeking his life is not obliged to retreat, but may stand his ground and defend himself with such means as are within his control; and so long as there is no intent on his part to kill his antagonist, and no purpose of doing anything beyond what is necessary to save his own life, is not guilty of murder or manslaughter if death results to his antagonist from a blow given him under such circumstances"

What does all that mean? Simply put, it means that as a citizen of the United States, I have the right, anywhere within the United States, to defend my life by whatever means are readily available.

But that still doesn't explain the massive differences in crime rates!

Ohhhh yes it most certainly does. While Texas, including the city of El Paso, has a castle doctrine modified with a 'stand your ground' law, supporting this 1895 court decision, Washington D.C. has neither doctrine. What does that mean? It means that when Joe Perp comes up to you waving a gun, you are bound by law to run away. Joe Perp wants your car? You are bound by law to give it to him. Joe Perp wants to break into your home, commit a rape, steal jewelry and a DVD player? You are bound by law to run away and let him.

Furthermore, all firearms in the District of Columbia must be unloaded and either trigger locked or locked away in a safe. But considering the fact that the District of Columbia doesn't offer immunity to prosecution (both criminal and civil) if you pull out and load that handgun and the person dies from you defending your life, then you are likely to be arrested and brought up on criminal charges.

El Paso Texas? No such luck for Joe Perp. Not only can you defend yourself in your car or your home, but if Joe Perp gets injured or killed in the process of trying to murder/rob/rape you or your spouse? Tough luck for Joe Perp as you won't be brought up on charges.

So my question to all the Thomas Mannard liberals out there is this:

If "more guns definitely equal more death", then why is the city of El Paso Texas, where gun laws are relatively relaxed, safer than Washington D.C.?

(Hint: Criminals break laws, they don't follow them)

(Another Hint: People who follow laws can't defend themselves in Washington D.C.)

(Last Hint I swear!: According to the Department of Justice, 80% of guns used in gun crimes are purchased from illegal sources!)