Gun Control at SCOTUS, Redux

Tomorrow, McDonald v. Chicago goes before the Supreme Court. As Iron Fist put it:

This is a big case any way you look at it. It is to decide whether the Second Amendment, which was found to safeguard an individual right in the 2008 Heller case, applies to States and Local governments. This would seem obvious, but in the twists and turns of the law, it actually isn’t… (more here)

It’s worth pointing out that “the usual suspects” on the left predicted gloom, doom, cats and dogs living together, and mass hysteria after the Heller ruling struck down DC’s gun ban. But, just as the wave of increased fatalities on the highways never actually arrived when the 55 mph federal speed limit was overturned, neither was a there a drastic increase in murders, crime, littering and massacrees in DC after Heller. Just the opposite, as a matter of fact.

…murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washington’s lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.’s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.’s population count is at about 590,000). This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has followed how crime rates change after gun bans have been imposed. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise. Washington’s murder rate soared after its handgun ban went into effect in early 1977… (FOX News)

One can only hope people keep this is mind when McDonald v. Chicago is debated and determined starting tomorrow. After all, gun control has never been about guns or crime – but about control. The only people impacted by gun control are “law abiding citizens”, also known (after gun bans are passed) as “victims”. Criminals are never disarmed by anti-gun laws; by definition, they are lawbreakers. Disarming one side but not the other leads to purely predictable results, which only the ignorant or insane are unable to see … or object to.

%d bloggers like this: