Imagine only being allowed to own a gun, or even a certain type of gun, (like a Glock 19 semi-automatic handgun, 9mm cal., AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, 5.56mm cal., Remington 11-87 semi-automatic shotgun 12 gage, or a Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic rifle .22mm cal.), solely based on a place of residence and population demographics.
Forget about the Second Amendment; think location, location, location. But location determined by whom? And for how long? What kind of gun? And what population size is too large or small? And, again, who decides the criteria– and for how long?
This concept was actually suggested by presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson. In his view, which he later backtracked on, gun ownership should only depend on population density. Essentially, the more people, no guns. The less people, some guns.
Carson recently stated on The Glenn Beck Show:
“It depends on where you live, I think, I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it. If you live out in the country somewhere by yourself, I’ve no problem.”
Interestingly, Carson is climbing the polls in Iowa, a more gun-ownership-friendly state than others. And like Iowa’s Senate leadership, Carson said he was for something before he was against it before he was kind of for something else.
This year Iowa’s State Senators refused to implement provisions into law (three firearms omnibus bills HF 527, SF425, SF427), designed to benefit everyone– even after they had promised to do so in the beginning of the legislative session. Instead, Iowa’s legislative session ended, again, with more false promises from its alleged leadership.
Meanwhile, another season of political pandering continues, during which candidates express one view about gun control, then change it several times, leaving the voters to decide which statement is truthful.
Iowa Gun Owners stated: “All the Presidential candidates claim to be pro-gun when they land in Iowa. Do you believe Dr. Ben Carson supports your gun rights after you watch this video?”
Interestingly, the news media does not report the facts associated with gun-related violence statistical data released by several government entities. In fact, despite both significant population growth and increased gun ownership, gun-related crimes have steadily decreased– by huge margins of 49 and 75 percent lower than they were roughly 20 years ago.
Violence associated with the gun homicide rate is down by 43% since 1993. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the Census Bureau’s Bureau of Justice Statistics:
“National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data.”
Additionally, Pew Research reported in:
- 2010 the national firearm homicide rate was 49% lower than it was in 1993;
- 2011 violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—were 75% lower than they were in 1993.
The NCVS estimates that in 2011 there were 181.5 gun crime victimizations for non-fatal violent crimes (aggravated assault, robbery and sex crimes) per 100,000 Americans who were 12 years old and older– compared to 725.3 Americans in the same age group during the same timeframe. That’s 182 compared to 725 over a nearly two-decade period.
Likewise, in 2011, there were 467,000 non-fatal gun crime victimizations compared to 1.5 million in 1993 in the same age group of 12 years old and older.
Yet despite all of the evidence to the contrary, a 2011 Gallup poll revealed that most Americans falsely believe national crime rates are getting worse. Perhaps, part of this misconception could explain why Carson would suggest (despite the Second Amendment) that gun owners should only live in less populated areas.