The Mother of All Stats
The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas
|The Genocide Chart © JPFO.org 2002|
|Government||Dates||Targets||Civilians Killed||"Gun Control" Laws||Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme|
|1-1.5 million||Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915
|• Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession
|Soviet Union||1929-1945||Political opponents;
|20 million||Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926
|•Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
& Occupied Europe
|20 million||Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938
|•Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession
|China, Nationalist||1927-1949||Political opponents;
army conscripts; others
|10 million||Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935
|•Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership
Enemies of the state
|20-35 million||Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957
|•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"
|Guatemala||1960-1981||Mayans & other Indians;
|Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964
|•Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees
•Prohibit carrying guns
•Bans on guns, sharp tools
|300,000||Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970
|•Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions
•Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers
|2 million||Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938
|•Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
•Photo ID with fingerprints
•License inspected quarterly
|Rwanda||1994||Tutsi people||800,000||Decree-Law No. 12, 1979||
•Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers
As you can see above, gun control has worked out so well in the past. Reason.com details how the gun ban in England has worked out. Here is an excerpt:
In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.
None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.
The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England's low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."
In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.