Reminder: Americans Own Almost Half of the Guns in the World, and Our Violent Crime Is Declining

H/T GunPowder Magazine.

You will never hear the drive-by media quote this about violent crime going down.

A talking point liberals – and notably, the Democratic candidates running for the 2020 presidential election – are fond of making, is that there are “too many guns” in America, and we have a violent crime “problem.”

Of course any violent crime is too much. But is America really that unsafe? And are guns to blame?

Reuters reported last year:

The Small Arms Survey, an independent global research project based in Geneva, Switzerland, found that there were more than 1 billion firearms in the world, of which civilians owned 85 percent, while the rest were held by militaries or law enforcement agencies.

The number of guns owned by civilians globally rose to 857 million in 2017 from 650 million in 2006, the survey said. There were 120 guns for every 100 U.S. residents in 2017, it found, followed by Yemen with nearly 53 firearms per 100 people.

“The biggest force pushing up gun ownership around the world is civilian ownership in the United States. Ordinary American people buy approximately 14 million new and imported guns every year,” survey author Aaron Karp told reporters.

Keep this in mind when you read what Pew Research reported last year:

Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century. The two most commonly cited sources of crime statistics in the U.S. both show a substantial decline in the violent crime rate since it peaked in the early 1990s. One is an annual report by the FBI of serious crimes reported to police in approximately 18,000 jurisdictions around the country. The other is an annual survey of more than 90,000 households conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which asks Americans ages 12 and older whether they were victims of crime, regardless of whether they reported those crimes to the police.

Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2017. Using the BJS data, the rate fell 74% during that span.

Property crime has declined significantly over the long term. Like the violent crime rate, the U.S. property crime rate today is far below its peak level.

Public perceptions about crime in the U.S. often don’t align with the data. Opinion surveys regularly find that Americans believe crime is up nationally, even when the data show it is down.

Also remember that places with the most gun control – Chicago, for instance, have soaring crime rates.

The American Civil Rights Union reported last year on a Harvard study:

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title:
“Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

What’s more, states with Constitutional Carry laws on the books, such as Maine and Vermont, are also the safest.

Gun Owners of America reports:

West Virginia enacted permitless carry in 2016. A half year later, law enforcement says they have “not noticed an increase in gun violence since the law went into effect six months ago.”

Likewise, Alaska enacted Constitutional Carry in 2003; Arizona followed in 2010. Both states saw their murder rates decline by 30% in the first five years.


Gun Prohibitionists Re-Packaging Gun Control As Public Health Crisis

H/T AmmoLand.

This lying campaign rings true under the old adage about lies,

“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

This re-packing stunt covers the Damned Lie and possibly statistics.


Gun Control Liars
Gun Prohibitionists Re-Packaging Gun Control As Public Health Crisis

BELLEVUE, WA – -( The billionaire-supported gun prohibition movement has re-packaged its gun control agenda as a public health crisis, trying to convince the public that the cure to violent crime is to amputate the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“They couldn’t sell gun control as crime control,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Then they couldn’t sell gun control as gun safety. Now they’re trying to convince the public that gun ownership is a public health issue.

“But this isn’t about public health,” he added. “This is all about politics. They’ve repackaged their agenda, but it’s the same old snake oil in a different bottle, and their strategy is right out of the gun control playbook.”

SAF, which hosts Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership as one of its priority projects, said the public should be alarmed at this campaign to equate gun ownership to a communicable disease. The SAF/DRGO project is a counter to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and its Center for Gun Policy and Research. Billionaire anti-gun-rights former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has reportedly donated $2.9 billion to the university over the years.

“What will they do next,” Gottlieb wondered, “attack freedom of speech as a mental health problem if someone openly disagrees with their crusade for public disarmament?

“For the health community to suggest that gun ownership is a public health problem amounts to medical malpractice,” he observed. “And by the way, medical malpractice kills a lot more people than firearms.”

Gottlieb’s warning comes as the Board of Health in King County, Washington is conducting a so-called “gun violence prevention summit” that doesn’t include a single representative from the firearms community. There is no input from firearms retailers, gun range operators or firearms instructors; not a single genuine gun safety expert.

“If there is a national crisis,” Gottlieb said, “trampling the rights of millions of healthy gun owners is not the cure. Demonizing guns and gun owners amounts to practicing voodoo during brain surgery. You’ll make a lot of noise and get plenty of attention, but the patient dies.”

Second Amendment FoundationThe Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Things Haven’t Always Been This Way

H/T AmmoLand.

I can remember when I was in Jr High and High School when you went to the parking lot seeing guns in gun racks in students pickups.

It was nothing for a student that was a hunter would ask their teacher if they wanted to see their shotgun or rifle they had in their vehicle.

Then the teacher would walk out to the vehicle with the student to inspect the students shotgun or rifle.

There were not any school shootings as we were taught to respect firearms and how deadly they are.


USA – -( Here’s a suggestion. How about setting up some high school rifle clubs? Students would bring their own rifles to school, store them with the team coach and, after classes, collect them for practice.

You say: “Williams, you must be crazy! To prevent gun violence, we must do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of kids.”

There’s a problem with this reasoning. Prior to the 1960s, many public high schools had shooting clubs. In New York City, shooting clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training, and Stuyvesant high schools. Students carried their rifles to school on the subway and turned them over to their homeroom or gym teacher. Rifles were retrieved after school for target practice. In some rural areas across the nation, there was a long tradition of high school students hunting before classes and storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars, parked on school grounds, during the school day.

Today, any school principal permitting rifles clubs or allowing rifles on school grounds would be fired, possibly imprisoned. Here’s my question: Have .30-30 caliber Winchesters and .22 caliber rifles changed to become more violent? If indeed rifles have become more violent, what can be done to pacify them? Will rifle psychiatric counseling help to stop these weapons from committing gun violence? You say: “Williams, that’s lunacy! Guns are inanimate objects and as such, cannot act.” You’re right. Only people can act. That means that we ought to abandon the phrase “gun violence” because guns cannot act and hence cannot be violent.

If guns haven’t changed, it must be that people, and what’s considered acceptable behavior, have changed. Violence with guns is just a tiny example. What explains a lot of what we see today is growing cultural deviancy. Twenty-nine percent of white children, 53% of Hispanic children and 73% of black children are born to unmarried women. The absence of a husband and father in the home is a strong contributing factor to poverty, school failure, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance and a host of other social problems. By the way, the low marriage rate among blacks is relatively new. Census data shows that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults from 1890 to 1940. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11% of black children and 3% of white children were born to unwed mothers.

In 1954, I graduated from Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin High School, the city’s poorest school. During those days, there were no school policemen. Today, close to 400 police patrol Philadelphia schools. According to federal education data, in the 2015-16 school year, 5.8% of the nation’s 3.8 million teachers were physically attacked by a student. Almost 10% were threatened with injury.

Other forms of cultural deviancy are found in the music accepted today that advocates murder, rape and other vile acts. In previous generations, people were held responsible for their behavior. Today, society at large pays for irresponsible behavior. Years ago, there was little tolerance for the crude behavior and language that are accepted today. To see men sitting while a woman was standing on a public conveyance was once unthinkable. Children addressing adults by their first name, and their use of foul language in the presence of, and often to, teachers and other adults was unacceptable.

A society’s first line of defense is not the law or the criminal justice system but customs, traditions and moral values.

These behavioral norms, mostly imparted by example, word-of-mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Today’s true tragedy is that most people think what we see today has always been so. As such, today’s Americans accept behavior that our parents and grandparents never would have accepted.

Walter E.Williams
Walter E. Williams

About Walter E.Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Williams is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty Versus The Tyranny of Socialism, and recently his autobiography, Up From The Projects.


Violent Assault Leads To A New Gun Owner In Virginia

H/T Bearing Arms.

I am sorry it took an ass whopping for Kris Eiben to see the light about carrying a gun for self-defense.

It’s a familiar story:  crime victim decides to arm themselves so they won’t be a victim again.  This time the story’s playing out in rural King William County, Virginia after a pair of thugs decided to attack two victims in separate attacks miles apart.

One man, an Aylett construction worker, was pistol-whipped so severely that doctors say he may never see out of his right eye again.

“He hit me with the end of the pistol and when it hit my eye, well, you can see what it did,” said William Dean.

Dean was beaten by the two men after they asked to borrow jumper cables.  According to a fundraiser page set up to help the independent construction worker, Dean suffered two broken ribs, a broken nose, a broken jaw, and injuries to both eyes.

Unfortunately, he wasn’t the only victim that evening. A few minutes before Billy Dean was beaten in front of his home, the pair allegedly assaulted another man standing on his driveway.

“I look over and see someone standing right by the shed and I said, ‘Can I help you?’ and he said, ‘Get on the ground mother f’er!” said Kris Eiben.

He was then assaulted in his driveway in the Rose Garden Estates neighborhood. Home surveillance shows two men raising and pointing a gun at him.

“They were here when I got home,” Eiben said. “My family was inside.”

Eiben told local media that the incident has left him a changed man when it comes to the idea of self defense.

“I’ve never been much of an advocate for guns but this has made me get my concealed carry and I will be purchasing a pistol,” Eiben said.

I’m glad Kris Eiben is alive to change his mind about guns, and I hope that not only will he purchase a pistol to go along with his new concealed carry license, but that he’ll be advocating against the gun control plans of Virginia Democrats in this year’s elections.  If anti-gun lawmakers get their way, it would be a lot tougher for Eiben to protect himself and his family in the very near future.  Earlier this year Virginia Governor Ralph Northam vetoed a bill that would have made it easier for non-residents to get a concealed handgun license in the state, and gun control groups have grumbled about provisions in current law that allow for Virginians to obtain a concealed carry license without going through hours of classroom training or passing a live-fire requirement.  If anti-gun activists are able to pick off a couple of pro-gun legislators in this year’s elections, expect big changes to Virginia’s concealed carry laws beginning in 2020.

WATCH – Father Who Killed Intrusion Suspect:‘I Had No Other Choice’

H/T Breitbart.

While the choice that Antwain Moton will no doubt haunt him for some time to come but he did what he needed to do to protect himself and his family.

It was the right choice as the suspect Efren Nectali Ramirez forced his way in and it gave Antwain to choice but fire the fatal shot.

A father who shot and killed an intrusion suspect at an Anderson County, South Carolina, residence says he had “no other choice” but to protect his daughter, wife, and mother-in-law.

Fox Carolina reports that 35-year-old Antwain Moton was playing X-Box when he heard a strange noise at the door. Moton went to the door where a suspect, 39-year-old Efren Nectali Ramirez, was allegedly trying to make entry.

Moton told Ramirez to leave, then the two engaged in a pushing match where Ramirez would push his way in before being pushed back out. Moton’s wife and mother-in-law allegedly helped push Ramirez back out as well.

He said, “His hands were just coming toward us, like he was going to do some type of harm.” Then Ramirez allegedly got far enough into the house to close the door behind himself, and that is when Moton shot him.

Moton said, “As soon as I shot him, I called 911, and tried to keep him responsive while I (spoke to the dispatcher).”

Ramirez received what proved to be a fatal shot to the chest. Moton said he regretted having to shoot, but was thankful he was home to protect his family.


WSPA reports the “Anderson County Sheriff’s Office investigators said the shooting appears to be self defense,” but an investigation into the incident is still underway.


New Jersey Governor Signs Bill Forcing Every Firearm Retailer to Sell Smart Guns

H/T Breitbart.

Smart guns are just a liberal wet dream that will not happen any time soon.

Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed legislation Tuesday that will force every New Jersey firearm retailer to carry at least one so-called smart gun for sale in their stores.

Smart guns are a theoretical technology that began to be pushed while Bill Clinton was in office, but they have never made it mainstream because they can malfunction easily; be jammed, as one jams a cell phone; or be defeated with about $15 worth of magnets.

Smart guns typically work one of two ways: First, they are paired with a watch or bracelet, the wearer of which activates the gun by having the watch or bracelet in close proximity to the firearm. This can be problematic as a robber, mugger, or sexual assaulter needs only to take the watch or bracelet along with the gun, and he can then fire the gun as if it were his own.

The second common way for smart guns to operate is via a biometric reader. Anyone who has a smart phone with such a reader knows that the smart phone biometric reader will not work if the finger it reads is wet. (Dip your finger in a glass of tea or water and then try to use that finger to unlock your smart phone.)

Now, what happens when the gun owner is bloody from a fight and is reaching for his gun as a last ditch effort to save his life? Will a bloody finger unlock a biometric reader if one covered in water or tea cannot?

There are other problems with smart guns; the two listed above are simply among the most glaring. Yet reports that Murphy signed legislation requiring retailers to carry at least one smart gun for sale. The text of the legislation refers to smart guns as “personalized guns,” saying, “[The bill] requires firearm retailers to have available for purchase at least one personalized handgun approved by the commission and listed on the roster as eligible for sale.”

Moreover, the new bill also creates a commission, which will create a roster stipulating which smart guns retailers can sell. California has a similar roster for traditional firearms, and it has slowly proven to be a way to deny citizens of that state access to many of the newest, and best, firearms.

Why These Defensive Uses of Firearms Should Disarm Second Amendment Skeptics


These stories prove the old adage “It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.”

At a time when many high-profile politicians are comfortable proposing laws that impose serious burdens on the right to keep and bear arms, including the mass confiscation of commonly owned firearms, it’s important to remember that those same firearms are regularly used by average Americans to defend their life, liberty, and property.

While some gun control advocates claim the Second Amendment is a dangerous historical relic, even going so far as to call for its repeal, they often overlook the fact that firearms are significantly more likely to be used for self-defense than in criminal activity.

In fact, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all national studies of defensive gun uses have found that firearms are used in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times every year in the United States.

Additionally, an independent analysis of the CDC’s own internal data on defensive gun uses indicates that firearms are used defensively about 1 million times a year, dwarfing the number of deaths and injuries attributable to their criminal use.

This year, we made a commitment to highlighting just a few of the many defensive gun uses that occur every month. Just as in JanuaryFebruaryMarchApril, and May, June was full of instances of law-abiding citizens who relied on their Second Amendment rights to defend their inalienable rights.

  • June 2, Martinsville, Virginia: A man filling his tank at a gas station successfully defended himself against two would-be robbers armed with handguns. The victim was unharmed, but one of the assailants, who exchanged gunfire with the victim, was shot and injured.
  • June 4, Sun City Center, Florida: A man suspected of committing multiple carjackings was fatally shot by an armed business manager with a concealed-carry permit while the man was attempting to break into the manager’s store. The suspected carjacker-turned-burglar was also armed, despite an extensive criminal history disqualifying him from lawful firearm possession.
  • June 5, Bakersfield, California: A woman defended her home and her children by retrieving her handgun and shooting a man using a hammer to break into her home. The injured man was later charged with several crimes, including carrying a concealed weapon, but neither the woman nor her kids were harmed.
  • June 6, Cincinnati: A woman shot her ex-boyfriend after he “kicked out the A/C unit and tried to break through the front window” of her home. According to police, the mother of five children—who were also home at the time of the incident—had a restraining order against the man. While speaking about the case, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Deters made it clear just how important it was for this mother to be armed: “It is hard to imagine what might have happened to her or her children if she had not been able to protect herself and her family.”
  • June 7, Chicago: A Good Samaritan with a concealed-carry permit intervened when two gunmen opened fire near him, drawing his own firearm and striking both assailants. The Good Samaritan, who was not injured in the exchange, was sitting in a nearby vehicle when the two assailants opened fire at an unknown fourth party, who was injured but survived.
  • June 14, Winston, Missouri: Several civilians, one of whom was legally carrying a firearm, came to the defense of a wounded female police officer after the restrained inmate she was transporting seized her service weapon, shot her, and commandeered the vehicle. The civilians witnessed the attack and followed the police vehicle until it came to a stop, where the armed civilian held the inmate at gunpoint while the other men pulled him out of the car. One witness later recounted, “If the Good Samaritan hadn’t threatened to use deadly force, the situation could have ended very differently [for the police officer].”
  • June 15, Highland Home, Alabama: A woman’s boyfriend came to her defense by shooting an attacker who stabbed her. The woman required almost 100 stitches because of the stabbing but survived. Her boyfriend was unharmed.
  • June 18, Detroit: A father was spending quality time with his family outside when he heard noises coming from his home. When he went inside, he was confronted by a man with a shotgun. Fortunately, the father was armed with his own gun and was able to fatally shoot the intruder before anyone else was harmed.
  • June 19, Warren, Michigan: A man’s stepmother, who was armed and had a concealed-carry permit, came to his defense after he fled from four masked men who attempted to rob him. The stepmother fired a warning shot, causing the assailants to return fire before quickly driving away. All four would-be robbers were later arrested.
  • June 25, Harris County, Texas: An intruder’s plan to burglarize a home was foiled when the homeowner fatally shot him. The homeowner was cleaning her house when she heard someone smash through her back window. She grabbed her firearm and at first attempted to hide from the burglar in a bedroom closet. When the burglar opened the closet, the woman ended the invasion with a single shot—fortunately, before the burglar could use his own firearm against her.
  • June 27, North Port, Florida: A woman’s boyfriend came to her defense when a man with a loaded handgun attempted to rob her while she withdrew money from an ATM. The boyfriend shot the would-be robber, who was seriously injured but survived. Both the robbery suspect and his alleged getaway driver were arrested and now face felony charges.

Although advocates of stricter gun control laws commonly claim that such laws are appropriate because defensive uses of firearms are rare compared with criminal uses, Americans like those cited regularly use firearms to defend the life, liberty, and property of themselves, their families, and even complete strangers.

Often, as evidenced above, they do so against criminals who remain quite capable of accessing firearms themselves, despite laws prohibiting it.

America’s tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners—everyday men and women, who just want to go about their lives in peace—are not better protected by laws that impose substantial burdens on their abilities to defend themselves against the criminals who don’t (and never will) abide by those laws in the first place.

They are better protected when we recognize that well-armed, law-abiding citizens are the first—and sometimes the only—meaningful line of defense for their own inalienable rights.