Yeah I know some believe right now it’s controversial in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut. I beg to differ; I think right now is the perfect time to talk about this. Right now; today is when this discussion needs to start. Obama has promised more Gun Control, The left is screaming for a ban on assault weapons.  Let’s look at the numbers and see if Dr John Lott is correct that more guns = less crime.

These numbers are taken from the FBI data base and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (  Per Capita numbers for every 1000 people in the US over the age of 12.

I am interested in violent crimes as the data and studies show that these types of crimes are were the Gun hating enthusiast pitch their tents.

take our poll - story continues below
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In 1973 there were a total of 47.7 violent crimes per 1000 individuals in the US. Of those crime .1 were murders, 2.5 were rapes (for this study rape numbers do not include sexual assault as it includes pedophiles and public exposure which neither usually entail a firearm). I can bore you to death posting number after number; however I try not to bore people reading my blogs, so I am going to just post the significant ones. If you want all the numbers I encourage you to go to the link provided and read them yourself.

In 1986 Rapes started to drop dramatically at a steady decline from 1.9 down to .3 in 2009 (my data point). What changed in 1886? In 1986 the number of states that started issuing Concealed carry permits started to increase. Granted most of these states were using the “may issue” legislation, but they were increasing the number of permits none the less. In 1986 1 state was unrestricted (Vermont) 8 shall issue, 25 may issue and 16 no issue.  In 1996 the rape number per 1000 individuals dropped below 1 for the first time since this stat was tracked. What happened in 1996? I’ll get into that in the next paragraph. Remember in 2009 rape was at a low of .3 with Murder at .1 per 1000 individuals.  I’d say that is a very dramatic swing.

Violent crime per 1000 individuals fluctuated pretty steady between 41.6 (low) and 52.3 (high) from 1973 to 1996. In 1997 a Huge a quick steady drop in violent crime started; that year it dropped to 38.8 continuing on at an average of 2.3 per year in 2009 (my data point) where it reached 16.9. Now I’ll tell you what happened in 1996 to touch off this dramatic drop in not only rape but violent crime. In 1996 a number of states that were using “may issue” legislation switched to “shall issue” legislation. As fact the number of states that had Unrestricted remained at 1 (Vermont), but 30 states were now shall issues states, 12 were may issue with only 7 remaining no issue. In 2011 there are 4 states with no restrictions (Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and Colorado), 37 shall issue states, 8 may issue states and only Illinois holds out as no issue. A recent Supreme Court ruling is changing that, but IL will fight it all the way.

In conclusion the numbers back Dr John Lott’s study and thesis that more guns = less crime.  What do I think should be done? This is simple. All of these “mass shootings” have 3 things in common. 1 they are all done with guns (yeah I said it) 2 they are all done by humans (obvious) and 3 they are all done in “gun free zones”. With those 3 things in common you have to look at the evidence. We are never going to get rid of humans, as much as I’d like to that is NOT going to happen. Banning guns like marijuana and alcohol has proven to be ineffective and only creates a larger problem. That leaves “gun free zones.”  Pardon my bluntness but FUCKING GET RID OF GUN FREE ZONES. Why are we making the innocent such easy targets? Its target practice for fuck sake. There are literally 24% of Veterans currently unemployed in the US (largest group). Take some of the money set aside for School and public safety and employ Vets to be armed guards at school? They already have weapons and range training, many have seen combat so trial by fire is a given. Why not take those that have offered to defend and let them continue to defend? I want to premise this by saying I am a Vet; I love my brothers and know that some would jump at this chance. Even make it possible for them to get an edge on becoming teachers, or police officers as an incentive. But hey that’s just this Vet’s opinion.

Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook