What Would Thomas Sowell Say About New Mexico’s Gun Ban and Crime?
Gun Control: A Flawed Solution to Crime
Gun control advocates claim that restricting access to firearms will reduce violent crime. However, not only does gun control fail to achieve its intended purpose, but it also poses a threat to our freedom. Renowned economist Thomas Sowell has long criticized the zealotry of gun-grabbers who ignore evidence to push their agenda. A recent act of gubernatorial tyranny in New Mexico, where Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham suspended open and concealed carry of firearms, highlights the need to revisit Sowell’s insights.
Grisham, like other power-hungry politicians, justified her executive order as a response to a “public health emergency” caused by gun violence. However, her unconstitutional edict has faced significant resistance. State and county officials have refused to enforce it, and a judge has issued a temporary restraining order to prevent its implementation.
But beyond the question of authority, the underlying assumption behind Grisham’s order remains problematic. She, like many others, believes that government-imposed gun control reduces violent crime. However, the Second Amendment exists to protect citizens from overreaching governors like Grisham. It is not about crime prevention but about safeguarding our sovereignty against government usurpers.
Moreover, the argument for gun control becomes even more frivolous when confronted with evidence that it does not reduce violence. Sowell has consistently debunked the practical justifications for gun control, even during emotionally charged times when scrutiny is unwelcome. He has presented numerous facts that challenge the notion of a direct correlation between gun control and reduced violence.
For instance, Sowell highlights that murder rates are highest in urban areas, despite a higher percentage of gun ownership in rural areas. He also points out that handgun ownership in the United States doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate decreased. Similar patterns can be observed globally, with countries like Russia, Brazil, and Mexico having stricter gun control laws but higher murder rates than the U.S.
Sowell’s extensive research and empirical evidence dismantle the fallacy that gun control laws are effective in curbing violence. Yet, gun control advocates continue to ignore these facts and cling to their misguided beliefs.
Ultimately, gun control laws, like Grisham’s ban, not only violate our constitutional rights but also fail to achieve their intended purpose. Sowell’s evidence undermines any practical justification for such unjustifiable acts of tyranny. It is crucial to recognize the flaws in the gun control argument and protect our freedom and right to self-defense.
Read More: Will New Mexico’s Gun Ban Stop Crime? Here’s What Thomas Sowell Would Say
Source: The Western Journal
How does the example of Chicago, with its strict gun control laws, demonstrate that limiting access to firearms does not prevent criminals from obtaining them illegally or finding alternative means to commit violent acts?
However, this assumption is flawed. Numerous studies and statistics have shown that stricter gun control laws do not lead to a decrease in crime rates. In fact, in many cases, they have had the opposite effect.
One example often cited is the city of Chicago. Despite having some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States, Chicago has consistently ranked among the cities with the highest rates of gun violence. This clearly demonstrates that simply limiting access to firearms does not prevent criminals from obtaining them illegally or finding alternative ways to commit violent acts.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the right to bear arms is an essential part of our freedoms as American citizens. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution enshrines this right, recognizing the individual’s right to self-defense and protection against tyranny.
Those who advocate for gun control argue that it is necessary to protect public safety. However, the truth is that law-abiding citizens who possess firearms are often the ones who can defend themselves and others in times of danger. Restricting their access to firearms only leaves them vulnerable and unable to adequately protect themselves.
Moreover, it is worth noting that criminals do not abide by laws. They will find a way to acquire firearms regardless of the restrictions in place. Therefore, gun control measures primarily target law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless while having little to no impact on criminal behavior.
Instead of focusing on gun control, we should be addressing the root causes of crime and violence in our society. Factors such as poverty, lack of access to education and mental health services, and the breakdown of family structures play a significant role in contributing to crime rates. By tackling these issues, we can effectively reduce crime and create a safer society without infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.
In conclusion, gun control is a flawed solution to crime. It fails to achieve its intended purpose while simultaneously posing a threat to our freedom. Instead of restricting access to firearms, we should be focusing on addressing the underlying causes of crime and violence. Only by doing so can we create a safer society while preserving our fundamental rights.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
