WELCOME

We hear anti-gun pro-safety promises that “Law will protect you.” Affirming, “We need more laws….” “We need more restrictions [read laws] on guns to stop gun crime.” Is this correct? How can we know?

​

My question is: HOW DOES LAW STOP MADMEN? I have yet to hear a specific answer to this question. What I hear is circumlocution (politic speak), where policy makers speak around the topic but fail to offer a specific answer to the question. How?

 

Analysis of Law's Power on Violent Criminals

 

Law consists of words on media. Citizens get informed. This shares a similar concept to the adage "Knowledge is power." But that old proverb fails on at least one critical point. Knowledge may provide information, but it cannot guarantee success. The person with that knowledge must DO something with it. (Not to mention, what if the knowledge is incorrect?)

​

Law cannot force an individual to obey it. We see on our freeways daily how speed limit laws affect drivers. Some comply, too many wildcards don't and drive reckless of safety. Why? Let's look at that analysis.​ Let's begin with this question: how does knowledge of law (words) force compliance?

​

NO LAW stops anyone from breaking it. Only two forces are at work to bring compliance to the law. Said another way, law’s “power” relies on:

​

1. Self-Compliance. A person’s willingness to obey that information [law]. Or,

2. By compulsion, physically enforced by LEOs (law enforcement officers). This compulsion comes in at least two forms.

        a.  Out of guilt, respect, or fear in the presence of an officer (fear of getting caught), you choose to

             comply to the law, which defaults to the first Self-Compliance. Or,

        b. Physical brute force by a law enforcer, whether by physical hand to hand arrest or by

            mechanical means (tasers, guns). Physical force is applied against a noncompliant person.

​

Hence, law’s power lies in only these two forms: self-compliance, or physical force. 

​

In regard to the belief that Gun Control Laws can control “gun violence,” politicians and activists speak like the knowledge of law will force criminals and madmen to comply. "We need more laws to control gun madness." "We need restrictions on guns to make us safer."

 

If laws were effective in stopping "gun-toting" madness, explain why 95% of mass murders occur in Gun Free Zones? (See Crime Prevention Research Center [CPRC], a world respected think tank on gun violence.) 

​

Two questions to ask yourself next time you hear of a mass shooting on the media.

​​

1. Who brought the gun into the gun free zone?

2. Who did not bring a gun into the gun free zone?

​

The answer to the first: the lawless madman who did not self-comply to the law.

The answer to the second: law-abiding (defenseless) victims who either do not own a gun, or, if they do, chose to comply with the law forbidding to bring their gun into the gun free zone.

​​

Next question: Who stops the madman? The answer: someone with a gun, be it an officer who arrives after dispatch, or a citizen who intervenes from outside the immediate scene. 

​

​Another question: Why do politicians have armed security? According to their own assurances to the public, shouldn't the gun control laws they pass protect them? Don't they trust the laws they pass to be effective at stopping madmen? Why then do they expect us to?

​

I hope you took note of my forth sentence in this article. I said, "We hear anti-gun pro-safety promises that 'Law will protect you.'" Please note the words "pro-safety," in referring to anti-gun policies. They are convinced that pro-armed defense policies are not pro-safety, and that armed citizens make society (individuals) unsafe. Unequivocally false as I will demonstrate another time. My research convinces me both sides of the gun debate want people safe. (Remember what I said about potential bias in research studies? Shouldn't we weigh independent research?)

​

But won't more people carrying guns make you and me more at risk? Isn't it the job of police to keep us safe? After all, they have extensive training, whereas armed citizens do not. We must ask, how effective is police training compared to that offered to armed law-abiding citizens? Are armed citizens more dangerous?

​​

According to CPRC research, records show that in 2006, there were 683,396 full time police. Violations among these officers averaged 0.017% = 118/683,396. That's impressive. Remember that: 0.017% out of 683,396 officers were involved in crime. What about all those “evil, careless, angry” citizen permit holders? CPRC observed,

 

         Compare that to firearms violations of concealed handgun permit holders in Florida. Between                 October 1, 1987 and December 31, 2011, there were 168 revocations for firearms related violations           in Florida (after January 2011, Florida stopped breaking out the firearms related violations by                 themselves). Over that period permits were issued to over 2 million permit holders. 168/2 million           = 0.008%. For Texas for 2015, the rate was about 24/1 million = 0.0024%. Michigan shows very                     similar rates of revocations of thousandths of a percentage point for firearms related violations.[1]

           

         Consider more as CPRC bears out:

​

         But that isn’t a fair comparison for Florida permit holders because the violation rate for officers               is an annual rate and the rate for permit holders is over decades.

​

            Remember this: comparing police against citizens who carry defensive guns, police involved in criminal activity average 0.017% for one year, vs civilian permit holders at 0.008% over decades. Civilian permit holders are exceedingly safer than police, losing permits for any type of firearm violation at a rate of thousandths of one percentage point.

​

Comparison of LEO training to what citizens need is neither fair nor applicable. Police training involves class studies on law, plus, laws apropos to physical techniques of criminal/suspect engagement for physical arrest. A citizen only needs to know defense laws (such as castle doctrine, and requirements to retreat or stand your ground), and how to defend themselves against violence. Their goal is to survive a violent attack, not to seek, engage, and arrest.

​

NEXT

Check our website for upcoming further examen on the reliability of research scientists on gun control and safety, The Inhered Right of Self-Defense, the differing interpretations on the Second Amendment, and much more.

 

[1] CPRC, “Updated: Comparing Conviction Rates Between Police And Concealed Carry Permit Holders,” 2015, crimeresearch.org

​