As promised, I’m not doing politics again on this blog. I’m not making a moral choice or contemplate about uncertain social engineering methods. However the gun control morons are here again after the Las Vegas shooting and I want to do my part in putting an end to that logical nonsense.
They say that without guns there would be much less gun violence and much less deadly violence in general, since guns make it much easier to kill people than knives and bats. This part is true. In my country, Hungary, it’s very-very hard to get guns and the homicide rate is 1.48 deaths per 100K people per year while 4.88 in the USA. Only 9% of the homicides are done by guns (Hungarian source), almost two times more people are killed with bare hands and 6 times more with knives.
Well, the numbers show that gun control works then? No! It shows that total collection of guns works. Since the communists collected all the guns and hiding guns led to serious time in jail, it’s virtually impossible for a common citizen or a common criminal to get guns so they can’t commit gun violence. So the data proves that if one could collect all the guns in the USA, gun violence would nearly disappear and all homicides would drop. But that’s not what the gun control morons suggest. Mostly, because it’s impossible to do it without a civil war, considering how important guns are to many American people. Also, it’s practically impossible since hiding a small handgun is easy.
Due to the impossibility of collecting all guns, the gun control morons suggest a “smaller step”: collecting/banning some guns and accessories (magazines, suppressors, full auto converters). After all, a small step in the right direction makes the things better, right? Wrong! The criminal gun violence rate depends on two factors:
- guns in the hand of criminals (the harder it’s to get guns, the less criminals will have it)
- no guns in the hand of the target or heroic bystanders (the harder it’s to get guns, the less lawful people will have it)
Mathematically Crime = Pcriminal*(1-Pcitizen) + Pcriminal*Pcitizen/2, the first tag means armed criminal met unarmed citizen, the second is armed criminal met armed citizen and won the 50-50 firefight. (very rudimentary model, but will do)
Please note that even in totally gun-free Hungary, there is gun homicide, no matter how low the rate is. If someone really want something, he can get it. He can smuggle, he can make a deal with foreign actors, he can manufacture it himself or go to a WWII battlefield with a metal detector. This is an evidence to an obvious fact: if getting guns is difficult, criminals will more likely have guns than lawful citizens. So let’s draw two arbitrary graphs about gun ownership between good citizens and criminals vs gun control:
As mentioned, the criminals reach full gun ownership early, as they really want guns. Most citizens at that difficulty level say “I won’t bother”. This creates a maximum at the criminal gun violence rate: before that the criminals are not fully armed, after that the citizens are more likely armed.
Hungary is clearly down on the left, enjoying low gun violence. The USA is way over the maximum, which means that decreasing gun availability (more gun control) would increase criminal gun violence rate: the criminals would still be armed and their targets would not be.
Saying “collect all guns at the penalty of years in prison” is a political choice that one can make. Once the costs are paid (including killing those who really mean “from my cold dead hand” and searching every place), the USA would be less violent without doubt. As I’ve said, deciding this is political, moral choice. But saying “let’s increase gun control” is just stupid: it would just make things worse. The only logical alternative of “collect all guns” is “more guns, more training and designing every event assuming that armed criminals or irresponsible guys can be around”.