After the latest tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas, progressives once again began popping off about wanting more gun control, some, the more socialistic in the bunch, calling for a complete ban on firearms, effectively asking that Congress toss the Second Amendment in the garbage can.
When this hornet’s nest of insanity gets kicked up, the first examples the left draws on to attempt justifying their call for a denial of the basic right of self-defense are countries like Australia and Great Britain who have strict gun bans.
Well, a new study might just destroy the misconception liberals seem to have about getting rid of guns as the solution to end all violence. New statistics indicate that the city of London is actually more dangerous than New York City.
Yes, London, a city with heavy gun control, is worse off than New York City.
via The Telegraph:
London is now more crime ridden and dangerous than New York City, with rape, robbery and violent offences far higher on this side of the Atlantic.
The latest statistics, published earlier this week, revealed that crime across the UK was up by 13 per cent, with a surge in violence in the capital blamed for much of the increase.
Seizing on the figures, US President, Donald Trump, claimed the rise could be linked to the “spread of radical Islam”, adding that it demonstrated the need to “keep America safe”.
Criminal justice experts insisted rising crime in the UK, and particularly London, was more to do with the way the city was policed and blamed the reduction in neighbourhood patrols across the capital.
While both London and New York have populations of around 8 million, figures suggest you are almost six times more likely to be burgled in the British capital than in the US city, and one and a half times more likely to fall victim to a robbery.
London has almost three times the number of reported rapes and while the murder rate in New York remains higher, the gap is narrowing dramatically.
The change in fortunes of the two global cities has been put down largely to the difference in tactics adopted by the two police forces.
Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe, if people didn’t have to totally rely on the police only for their safety and defense, there wouldn’t be so many available opportunities for bad guys to, you know, be bad guys?
If less patrols means more crime, then it’s logical to deduce that bad guys know without police around, the folks they have targeted are unarmed easy targets, which motivates their assaults and attacks. What if, and I know this is nuts, people were allowed to carry guns and defend themselves against violent criminals?
Since these countries have tried everything else, why not really try something radical to help end crime? Like liberty.
Hey everything else is failing, why not give it a shot?