Crimes Drop Lower for Third Year

The Brady Campaign utters its hysterics at the proof they are liars.

Ah, yes, what a wonderful story to start the day with. The FBI reports that violent and other crimes are down for the third straight year.

But how can this be? After all, during 2008 and 2009 there was a tremendous increase in firearms and ammunition sales. Besides that, we had two rulings by the Supreme Court that struck down firearms/handgun bans in DC and Chicago, the latter ruling that the Second Amendment is to be incorporated in the states. That but a big damper on several cities' gun control measures. I mean, really, don't more guns equal more crime? Shouldn't there be blood running in the streets. Crime actually dropped? INCONCEIVABLE!

Now I must interject, as would Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Ah, yes, the "experts" are amazed at this phenomenon, but it makes sense to me. You see, the very reasons listed about that the Brady Campaign and other gun-grabbers would like to use to scare people into thinking crime should be going up, are the reasons, IMHO, crime is going down.

You see, put yourself into the place of a criminal for a minute, hypothetically. Let's place it at three years ago. Would you rather try to rob someone or break into a house in Chicago, IL, or Jackson, TN? Washington, DC or about anywhere in Texas?

Now, if you were a smart criminal, you would have chosen Chicago or DC. Why? Because private ownership and usage, much less carry, were explicitly banned (as I understand their laws were written). So, you would have taken your gun (remember, you're pretending to be a criminal for this scenario, so you don't care that the law says no guns, cause it also says no robbery or breaking and entering, and you are getting ready to do that anyway) and you would hold someone up out of sight of police, broken into a house at night, maybe tried to rape someone. Odds are, you would be successful.

Why wouldn't you have chosen Tennessee or Texas? You have no legal guarantee that your victim can't fight back. You don't know if your intended victim is capable and willing to cure your lead deficiency. Fact is, you don't want to get shot!

Now move that time period forward to today. It has been ruled unconstitutional to ban handguns (and other common firearms, eg. shotguns, etc.) and the use thereof for defense of oneself/family within the home. Now you don't know which house to break into anywhere. Now, potentially everyone is able to "cure" you. Again, you don't want to get shot! Think that would deter you from becoming a criminal if you hadn't been previously? Plus, take into account, with a citizen's right to self-defense being recognized, that results in a lot of dead criminals, further reducing the pool of pond scum capable of committing crime. You think that if your buddy got shot trying to rob someone that it might discourage you a little bit? If you want to continue unfettered oxygen consumption, it better!

Factor in all of that with two other statements in the article:

So explain this: Police budgets have been shrinking. Not only that, typically crime rates head up when the economy heads down.

. . . . .

"There is a connection between the economy and crime rates, but it's not that when the economy is bad, people go out and commit crime," said Fox. "When the economy is bad, there are budget cuts. Less is spent on youth crime prevention and crime control on the street."

This is what really stuns the "experts". The government, in this case via police, can't control/fix everything! Good, upstanding citizens are armed, and that discourages crime. And in that case, it won't matter if less is spent on (public) crime prevention and crime control, because citizens are stepping into their proper role of taking responsibility for it themselves!

Now, yes, I know some people are going to take this as me arguing that correlation = causation. I do not believe that. At some point though, we need to recognize and take a look at the root causes of things that are going against the grain of what "conventional" (read "often false") wisdom tells us. Why are the experts baffled? What scenarios have they seriously contemplated? I offer one scenario here which I believe they have not seriously considered. Take it for what you will, form your own conclusions, but look at the logic behind it before you dismiss it. More guns = less crime.