Not that it would surprise anyone who’s been seeking facts, but murder is down while gun and ammo sales are way up. NRA’s ILA discusses the latest FBI crime report. They link to this tidbit also. Wow– what happened in 2006? See that little spike in the last quarter of 2001? We felt that one, so we already knew about it. We has recently started selling our ground breaking AK optic mount, and people started buying them up in droves after 9/11, along with high-end optics. You attack the U.S. and we prepare to respond as individuals, should individual action become necessary. That is as intended by our nation’s founders.
I’d like to have seen some mention of the word “rights” or of the second amendment, and how a right is not contingent upon certain crime rate parameters, but the ILA article will have to do. I can help them understand things a bit further;
At the expense of undercutting a future post I have planned, here’s the danger in these types of arguments; crime will at some point rise. For one reason or another, these things cycle up and down. If you place too much stock in the assertion that gun rights should be protected because crime is dropping while gun ownership is rising, you’ll eventually lose that argument and have to start over with a different one, in danger of looking like a hypocrite (Republicans? Are you listening?). Crime will increase and gun buying will at some stage decrease, and they will probably at some other point happen both at the same time.
If violent crime were high and increasing, wouldn’t access to the tools of self defense be that much more important? Hmmm? And again I ask; Hmmm?
Principles. It can’t be overstated. Gun rights should be protected because a right is a right. Violators of rights should be punished because they are criminals and we can’t afford to tolerate criminals. Principles don’t change with the ebb and flow of statistics just as Rosie would have gotten fat with or without legal access to a spoon.