Just remember that the model for modern disarmament is the Sullivan Act of 1911.
The old disarmament movement was based on the assumption of superiority of the nobles and the ignorance of the peasantry. The new disarmament movement is built on the belief that the S.A. of 1911 represents the modern standard of "reasonable gun control". (I previously thought that reasonable "gun control" was contained within the Four Rules and NRA basic marksmanship brochures.)
It's amazing to me that the whole of the disarmament movement is teetering atop this foundation. I would think that one push in the right direction, and down comes the whole thing. Perhaps many people lack a historical perspective that includes Tammany Hall, especially considering how the current political powers that be continue to practice the same methods with urban areas. There is hope and danger that these captives of the welfare state are so disconnected from civilization that they are losing their humanity, and the past decade of elections has shown us they have long since lost their sense of responsibility with respect to the duty of the vote. That's an unexpected problem for the social engineers. (They need more voters, and fast.)
What is so often missed by the media (that it is too conspicuous to be anything but intentional) is that there is a chronological order to events, where dramatic rises in major crime follow stringent regulation of the people's ability to defend themselves, and with the weapons of their choosing; that's why every news story attempts to convey that where there is crime, there are not yet disarmament laws. This backfired in D.C., where total disarmament preceded the worst crime surge in its history. I hope we were not the only ones to notice. You'll also notice that violent crime is trending upward in Switzerland, however no one is concerned with the fact that, under pressure from the EU, the land of clocks and chocolate passed their first disarmament laws some eight years ago, and opened up their borders. Well, no one aside from pro-gun researchers and the Swiss.
It is a disarmer's tactic to reduce the argument to only the physical object. There most certainly is a link between crime and a society that will defend itself by force. By narrowing focus to include only one type of weapon, we may avoid the discussion of the fact that harsh penalties for using a weapon in defense have a similar effect to confiscating the weapon. I'm sure there are disarmers ready to pounce on the CCW experiment in Kansas City, but who will fail to mention the meager number of applicants. (Who would want to make his predilection for arms known to a government that is openly hostile towards such?)
