A Letter to The Editor of the Stanford Examiner points out that restrictive gun laws do more harm than good. https://www.standard.net/opinion/letters/letter-gun-laws-do-more-harm-than-good/article_6cfaf6cc-afc7-5164-8066-d181eb90cd0c.html
This is true. In more than 50 years I have examined the results of restrictive gun laws back to the first, in 1495. In all that time, and having gone through what can be determined of those laws, I have failed to find one, that a human in possession of their facilities would consider beneficial. Ignoring the relatively small number of laws that were never enforced, my friends and I have counted more than 58,309 such laws without finding a single benefit.
But many studies of guns and gun laws show the hugely beneficial results of either no gun laws or permissive gun laws. The chart below is from a long view of European homicides. As the chart below, taken from a European study, shows, when there were NO gun laws, there was almost no violent crime:
As you can see, in the early years of the Second Millennium, the homicide rate was very high. In fact, the the year 1,000 the Baltic States had a murder trial for every 450 subjects, in that time of famine. But guns did not become commonly available until 1340. And did nto become cheap enough for a wealthy peasant to afford until well after 1500.
But when guns became cheap enough for almost everyone to own, the homicide rate dropped to less than 1 per 100,000 in most States and only slightly higher in those with economic problems.
Obviously, the benefits of private gun ownership far the largely imaginary benefits of gun control.
As a rule of thumb, a restrictive gun law will triple the homicide and violent crime rates withing a decade of going in force. The date all the litigation is ended, specifically.
And relaxing restrictions on private possession and transportation of firearms will cut homicide and violent crime rates by half in 20 years.
That is subject to social and economic conditions remaining unchanged, of course.
Stranger