From SafeAround: “Ireland is a safe country. We recommend exercising normal safety precautions.

“However, there are common petty theft, burglary, and other insignificant offenses. Violent crimes are very rare, although exist and more often occur in rural areas. According to the statistics, despite the relatively low level of criminality in general, you are 5 times more likely to be shot or killed in Ireland, than in its nearest neighbors, Wales and England. Unfortunately, one in every 18 people in Ireland was a victim of crime last year, but that doesn’t mean that you have to cancel the visit and to think about going somewhere else. The best decision is to avoid some unsafe and dangerous neighborhoods. Follow safety precautions and rest vigilant all the time, let it be in the bar, train, restaurant or hostel.”

In the U.S., it was about one in every 263 people who were victims of violent crime in 2018.

Then there was this in the Journal.ie for 2nd May 2019. Apparently, you don’t know your own town as well as you thought.

But that isn’t the reason for my reply, which is long overdue. I apologize for the delay.

You wrote: “You cannot create an environment where such tactics are unviable, without giving up many more freedoms than simply the right to bear arms. Therefore it is better to begin a slow process towards civilian disarmament.”

Even if by “slow” you meant “glacial,” your statement has a real problem.

Why would we move towards civilian disarmament? What benefit would we see?

This is the problem with one-dimensional thinking. Your view is limited to only one aspect. Guns have a lot of appeal to a lot of people for a lot of different reasons. And in America, there are a lot of people with a lot of guns.

Let’s consider actual violence committed with guns in the United States in 2018. This includes murders and aggravated assaults. According to the FBI, there were an estimated 16,214 murders and 210,734 aggravated assaults in 2018, based on reports from federal, state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies.

The U.S. population 18 years and older was roughly 253.9 million. No one has precise numbers but surveys indicate that about 31%-32% of adults own a gun: call it 80 million.

If every one of those murders and aggravated assaults was committed by a different American gun owner, 99.7% of American gun owners didn’t murder or assault anyone.

But a significant percentage of that violence was committed by people who weren’t legal gun owners. Urban violence and gang violence, in particular, doesn’t seem to be affected by gun laws. The U.S. city with the highest homicide rate has few restrictions on firearms; the city with the second-highest rate has very stringent regulations.

So it’s quite likely that the percentage of lawful gun owners that did not commit violent acts is even higher than 99.7%.

So why should the 99.7% disarm? Especially since the criminals that misuse firearms and obtain them on the black market or through other illegal means have no intention of giving up their guns.

Modern firearms are designed to last a very long time but even very old guns are still capable of being fired. It’s going to be a very long time before the supply runs out.

So, contrary to your assertion about unarmed police, there is a call for more armed police by the unarmed police themselves. The city in which you live has a much higher rate of gun violence than you realize. Your disarmament suggestion offers no benefit to Americans; it could be argued that the violence would get worse.

You will understand why I remain unpersuaded.

Professional writer. Passionately interested in facts. Founder of onewordtexas.org

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store