Protecting the Safety of
What better means than the right to
by Ed Lewis
"We’ve got to protect the safety of citizens and ensure the protection
of law enforcement..."
This is a statement by Governor Bob Holden of the State of Missouri. He is,
however, opposed to concealed carry. This opposition indicates that he either
has not reviewed facts, or is not interested, in the facts concerning concealed
carry and its positive effects on protecting not only citizens from crime, but,
also, the lives of law enforcement personnel.
This image is found on
Missouri Gov. Holden's website.
Using the Constitution's "We the People" while
defying the right to keep and bear arms is pure, ugly
With this in mind, I wrote the governor concerning an article I wrote several
months ago in which I compared the area with the most stringent controls,
Washington, DC. to Missouri (does not have concealed carry) to Vermont which has
unrestricted concealed carry for all lawful citizens age 16 and over -- without
even a need for a license or "permit."
In the article the facts concerning concealed carry clearly show the benefits
of having an armed populace while stringent controls are indicative of the
dangers inherent with disarming or limiting the arming of the populace. Although
I know most who want no restrictions nor tracking of firearms know this
information, it is important to review it for new readers or those new to the
First, here are the basics of the District of Columbia’s laws on firearms:
1) No handgun may be possessed unless it was registered by 1977.
2) Many rifles and pistols are defined, quite wrongly, as machine guns
and are prohibited.
3) Firearms kept at a business may be kept operable but firearms kept
at home must be disassembled and are unusable for self-protection.
Thus, firearms for self-protection by law-abiding citizens are effectively
done away with. This is completely contrary to the Constitution, but one must
remember: the Constitution is essentially an agreement between the people of the
States made to create the US Government (the District of Columbia) and to
designate limited duties of the government thus formed.
In other words, the government housed in the District of Columbia may make
any law it wishes as it has near plenary power over this area, the States of the
United States (which include only Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and, I
believe, American Samoa unless stated otherwise), territories, and federal
enclaves (such as military posts).
If one believes that stringent controls will reduce crime and protect
citizens, Washington, D.C. should have the least crime. It should be added that
Washington also has the most armed body guards and law enforcement organizations
(3600 on the Metro PD for a population of just over 500,000), and, of course,
many other armed government agencies, including military troops at the ready,
and, more recently, armed EPA troops.
The figures below are taken from The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports which
reports the incidents of crime in numbers. Also, the figures are per 100,000 of
population and rounded to the nearest whole number. For review purposes, the
5-year average from 1994 to 1998 was used. This first set of numbers is
concerned with RAPES, a concern of millions of women.
- District of Columbia 5-year Average - 48
- Missouri 31
- Vermont 27
One can also see that if women wish to prevent rapes, that they should arm
themselves and forget passive resistance or screaming or blowing whistles or
whatever. In fact, it is possible that the most effective deterrent would be to
train and arm every woman or at least have concealed carry permitted by those
who wish to do so as secured by the 2nd Amendment.
Regardless, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the
number of rapes decrease as concealed weapons increase, that an effective
deterrent to rape is provided through concealed carry. But, how about other
Let’s examine the same 5-year period concerning MURDER. This is rather
shocking but the figures were checked and re-checked several times. Again, this
is per 100,000 of population.
- District of Columbia 5-year average - 63
- Missouri 8
- Vermont 2
It would appear that -- in America -- one of the most dangerous ten-mile
areas to live is in gun control's haven, Washington, DC. One would think that
the members of Congress members would want to increase the odds of the people
there not being murdered since the same potential (roughly 31 to 1 over Vermont)
exists for them without factoring in other variables, such as people getting
dangerously upset over corruptness in government. (Perhaps their bodyguards make
them immune to the fear other D.C. residents feel?)
What about the last two categories considered as "violent" crimes,
ROBBERY AND ASSAULT. Remember, the government and its media lackeys present the
myth that both will decrease with increased gun control. In other words, these
organizations are telling us that police forces, armed federal agencies, 911
systems, and so on are enough to protect the public and cause violent crimes to
decrease into virtual non-existence. You know, get rid of guns and no more
crime. Once again, the following figures are per 100,000 of the population
|5 year averages in:
|District of Columbia
My, my, my, if this isn’t really strange. If gun control will control
crime, why does Vermont only have 1.2 percent of the number of robberies per
capita that Washington had during the same time period? A person has nearly 90
times greater odds of being robbed in our national Gun Control Capitol as in
Vermont. Hmm, something doesn’t add up.
And, in regards to assault, Vermont had 6.8 percent of the number that
occurred in the nation’s capitol. This means that a person has 17 times
greater odds of being assaulted in the nation’s capitol as in Vermont. How
can this be if gun control works?
My gosh, you would think the people who live in Washington would wake up to
the facts. Even though they are under plenary control, they still have basic
human rights which the feds cannot take away regardless of the Constitution
not securing these rights for them. They are God-given just as ours are and,
if en masse, they refused to comply, what would Congress and its armed
marauders do - declare war on its own citizens, put them all in prison, or
shoot them all?
One will notice something else from the fact that a state such as Missouri
which does not have concealed carry: although its crimes are not as numerous
as in the capitol, they are far more likely to be killed, robbed, raped, or
assaulted than in Vermont. This again supports the "positive effect of
concealed carry on crime reduction" theory -- since Missourians can have
all the loaded weapons they wish inside their homes.
It is glaringly obvious that the closer gun control approaches that of the
2nd Amendment (NONE), the greater the decrease in crime. And, conversely, the
more stringent controls placed on citizens concerning arming themselves, the
greater the increase in crime.
The effects of concealed carry fully support the fact that in order to
decrease crime, we must increase the number of decent armed citizens. The
basis for this is simple. If a person intent on committing a crime doesn’t
know whether or not his intended victim is armed, he is much less likely to
proceed. Most of them don’t wish to die or be shot any more than their
intended victim wants to be victimized. This is well supported by the above
and many other sources of facts.
Is this too difficult for legislatures to understand? If so, they need to
be replaced for being too ignorant to understand and use facts in making
decisions that affect the people of the 50 States or their respective state.
When confronted with such legislators, one must question if he/she has a
hidden agenda -- indicated by the ignoring of facts and subsequent
falsification of gun control and crime reports given to the media.
Anyway, this writer has made the offer to the new governor of Missouri to
supply him with the facts. Now, the interest is in whether or not he will
respond and, if he does, whether he will want the facts concerning the effects
of concealed carry in preventing crime. At this juncture, no prediction can be
However, based on Governor Holden expressing his anti-concealed carry
beliefs during his campaign as he did, the most probable response is either no
response or a line of BS about how gun control saves lives. This stands to
reason if he spoke truthfully concerning his beliefs during his campaign and
wasn’t just blowing smoke to get himself elected.
To that we will shall see -- eventually, that is. And, perhaps, for once,
this concerned citizen will not be disappointed.
Citizens are encourage to read the most in-depth study to date on the
effects of concealed carry decriminalization on violent crime: More
Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott.
Also by Ed Lewis