Lies the government told you by Andrew Napolitano (big screen ebook reader .TXT) 📕

Six months after the ban ended, the FBI reported a 3.6 percent drop in violent crime, the first in five years. And those states that continued to have assault weapons bans actually saw the lowest drops in murder rates.15 Of course, the public is never made aware of these statistics, and the government still claims that we were safer with the ban.

The reason the government continues to get away with these lies and deceptions is the absurd willingness of the people to believe that by disarming the general public and law-abiding persons, we will also effectively disarm criminals. Rational thought dictates the opposite effect: By disarming law-abiding persons, the government effectively gives criminals more firepower for their crimes. Yet a study that cross-referenced the FBI uniform crime report with concealed weapons laws in every state found a very high correlation between laws banning concealed weapons and high crime rates. But it was a different correlation than the government expected, because rather than having lower crime in those areas where gun control was most stringent, there was the opposite effect: The states with the most lawfully concealed weapons had the lowest rates of crime.16

Vermont is the state most famous for its permissive gun carry laws, and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the Union. Compare the District of Columbia, with the highest gun murder rate, at almost 57 out of 100,000 persons to a city across the river, Arlington, Virginia. Arlington has much more permissive guns law, but its gun murder rate is 1.6 per every 100,000 persons. One could argue that this is due to a different city landscape, but if it does not prove that access to guns lowers crime, it at least illustrates that gun control does not help lessen crime and violence. And if it cannot do that, then what is its use? Might it have something to do with the lust of those in power to dominate us?

Fewer than 2 percent of handguns and 1 percent of all guns in this country will ever be used to commit a violent crime, so the all-encompassing gun laws aimed at the entire population, when only a small subset of it is involved in crime, is like burning a haystack to get at a needle.17 On the other hand, it is law-abiding citizens who are often successful in warding off crime, and studies have shown that assailants armed with guns will typically flee when their victim draws a weapon.18

Guns are used defensively more than two million times per year, which means that more armed citizens successfully defend themselves and reduce criminal activity each year.19 Benjamin Franklin once stated that democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner, while liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote. Slowly but surely, the lambs are being disarmed while the wolves continue to sharpen their teeth.20

But of Course Law Enforcement Officers

Deserve to Be Armed

But then we should consider who the wolves in the scenario are. The government looks us in the eyes and tells us that it is acting with our best intentions at heart. There is one name, Ken Ballew, that is not familiar to many of us; but it should be. He is just one example of the atrocities that have been perpetrated during the fraud that is gun control.

On a balmy night in June 1971, Ballew was in the middle of his shower when he heard a banging on his back door as if someone was trying to break it down. Worried about the safety of his live-in girlfriend, who was sleeping in bed, he ran and grabbed his gun and whirled toward the door. At the same time, about twelve men spilled into his home, dressed in ratty clothes and carrying weapons. Naked and terrified, Ballew instinctively drew his weapon up, ready to protect his home and loved one. At that moment, one of the men breaking into his home yelled “Gun!” The next thing Ballew knew, he was lying on the ground, bleeding from a gunshot wound to the head while his girlfriend was being dragged from her bed, naked, and thrown into a hallway. Ballew managed to survive but was paralyzed for the rest of his life.21

The home invaders were not criminals, but rather a combination of BATF and local law enforcement officials. Ballew was not a hardened criminal who had just committed heinous crimes. Actually, he had not committed any crime at all. Unfortunately for him, a so-called reliable confidential informant provided “information” to the police that Ballew had live hand grenades in his home. Even though the law enforcement officials noted that there were no grenades registered under his name, as required by an obscure provision of the National Firearms Act, the BATF felt that a night raiding party of twelve men was the appropriate reaction. And their reactions led to Ballew’s permanent paralysis. Of course, after an investigation, the reality was that all the grenades in Ballew’s home were deactivated and so did not have to be registered.

This is just one of the reasons that a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary attacked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, stating that it was apparent that the “enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally and practically reprehensible” (emphases added). The subcommittee noted that about “75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations. In one case, the Bureau’s acting chief admitted that the individual was being prosecuted for completely lawful behavior.”22 Innocent citizens who choose to be prepared to defend themselves often get caught in the cross fire of convoluted and undecipherable legislation.

If you think that it would never happen to you, consider the case of Wanda Boley, a music teacher of twenty-one years. Wanda carried a gun in her car, which was legal