By MamaLiberty

Sorry, trick question. Of course, all “gun laws” go too far. And, for the record, that has almost nothing to do with the “second amendment”  or safety or reducing actual violent crime.

The fundamental question that isn’t being asked, most of the time anyway, is why there should be any government “control” of an inanimate object. The gun control people insist that more and more “laws” are needed to save lives, to reduce violent crime, and to give the police better ways to achieve this. I can’t see any basis for this idea in the facts available.

The laws prohibiting murder, assault, rape, theft, and every other aggression of one person against another, are only useful after the fact, to apprehend and possibly punish those who commit those crimes. The laws themselves do nothing to actually prevent crime. People who want to harm others are not much influenced by the laws, and are obviously even less impressed by laws written to prohibit them from obtaining and using whatever tools they deem necessary.

Then there’s the fact that those who enforce all the “laws” don’t have a very good track record when it comes to using them for their supposed purpose – including here just the actual laws against actual violent crime, not prohibitions and all the rest.

To start with, many violent crimes are never even reported to local “officials,” let alone put into state or national data sets. That includes murder, as well as rape and armed robbery. What part did the “law” play in those?

Then, even if the victim reports the crime, and even if some sort of investigation is performed, there’s nothing to indicate how many of them are included in either state or national statistics. Police departments have fairly great latitude in this, and they are certainly not above manipulating the data to further their own agendas and increase their power and budgets.

Given that problem, what is the likelihood of any particular crime being solved, and the perpetrator brought to trial? How many of them are incarcerated or otherwise punished according to the “law?” You might be surprised.

For whatever it’s worth, the “clearance rate” of certain violent crimes nationwide looked something like this in 2013, the latest figures I could find:

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter – 64.1%
Aggravated assault                                     – 57.7%
Forcible rape                                               – 40.6%
Robbery                                                       – 29.4%

Interestingly enough, those figures are not very different at all from what I found for 2004.

That means, of those crimes actually reported and investigated, only half or fewer result in the arrest of a suspect! There is probably no way to even estimate the national percentage of those cases that go on to trial or resolution where the actual perpetrator is appropriately identified, given “due process,” and punished.

And remember that this data does not indicate the tool used for the crime either. Could be a gun, or someone’s bare hands – a truly deadly weapon among many. Not too many calls for legislation to require handcuffs on everyone who does not pass a “background check.”

Roughly 36% of murders go unsolved, and the killers go on to do whatever it is they will do… likely kill again. Stands to reason that much violent crime is committed by people who got away with it earlier. Why not? What’s to stop them anyway? The “law?”

Yet we are told that passing “laws” against the possession of certain tools will actually prevent violent crime. Just how crazy is that? Do you think that just maybe, somehow, the proponents of more “gun control” have another agenda?

They want to confiscate our guns because they want to do things to us that we won’t allow as long as we have guns. That’s the bottom line.