Violent crime rates have little to do with the availability, or lack thereof, of firearms.
Japan is often cited by anti-gun zealots as a prime example of why U.S. citizens should not be allowed to possesse guns.
Switzerland is cited by gun-owners as an example of a society where almost every home possesses a firearm.
Both have extremely low rates of violent crime. There are many differences between the cultures of these two countries. The one thing they have in common are citizens with a tremendous sense of self-discipline.
So more stringent gun laws, or even gun confiscation, would not guarantee lower violent crime rates in the United States. Gun confiscation in Britain and Australia have not had the desired effect. Gun-related crimes have skyrocketed...by as much as 30 to 40 percent. It seems the criminals didn't turn theirs in. Because of confiscation, in Australia especially, they have a safer environment in which to carry out their nefarious operations. The real tragedy of Australia is that, prior to a well-publicized one-of-a-kind event, there was very little gun crime in the land down under. But liberals in that country seized on that event as justification for fashioning and imposing a series of draconian gun laws. As a result, it appears that the Aussies are a good deal less secure now than they were before.
Oh...and PLEASE do not cite Europe as an example of an area with sensible gun laws to control violence. Most west-European nations had strict gun-laws imposed upon them during the late 1930's and early 1940's. The result was tens of millions of murdered civilians, whose governments turned over lists of gun-owners to the Nazis. Any citizen in the occupied countries who did not turn in their firearms were arrested and shot. The Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps only AFTER they were disarmed. The Nazis hid their true purpose with lies and deceit. These victims didn't know the danger they were in until too late.
For our liberal friends who would assure me that "It couldn't happen here!" let me state that I do not believe it. Perhaps it couldn't happen under present circumstances, but what guarantees can you make for the future?
I do not want to have to live in a fortified "old-folks community" when I'm 65 because that is the only way the government can guarantee my safety. That's the type of situation you would have in the U.S. with an unarmed citizenry. I don't want to live that way. I live in a rural environment, away from large centers of population. It takes the police a good while to respond to a 911 call. Leave me the ability to provide for my own security. It's my responsibility anyway, not that of the police. Their main job is to provide collective security, not individual security. You cannot even hold them responsible for their inability to protect you. They cannot be sued in court, at least successfully, for failing to protect us from violent crime.
If you want to be sheep, so be it. Just do not require me to live the same way.
Regards, Shuckins
