To say that restrictions or encumbrances on gun ownership have “no effect” on crime is to defend those restrictions and encumbrances. … It is somewhat like saying that slavery has no effect on the general welfare of the slaves, being that good slave masters see to it that their (rather expensive) slaves are housed, fed, trained, cared for, and so on.To add: "no effect" implies a "no-harm-no-foul" on violations of fundamental civil rights. That's not how this works. If you're going to restrict the free exercise of an enumerated right - especially via a prior restraint - there must be some definitive, measurable, and overwhelming benefit to doing so.
[…]
When Progressives claim “no effect” on crime, what they should be saying is that their gun restrictions failed to reduce crime rates. Failing to reduce is very different from having “no effect”, and it’s a way of letting them off the hook for their role in encouraging violent crime through their wholesale violation of a human right.
"No effect" fails to meet that burden. The somewhat more honest* "fails to reduce violent crime" fails even harder, and the strong possibility that "gun control" laws actually increase crime undermines it completely.
When we let the anti-rights people claim "no effect" without qualification, we're letting them claim that a given law has no effect on either violent crime rates OR gun ownership. That might be true for the former**, but is absolutely not true for the latter. And yet, they will shriek like banshees if you try to repeal a law that restricts a fundamental right by creating an entire class of victimless crimes (and "criminals"), but at best provides zero net public safety benefits.
The question we need to be asking — and demanding a response to — is, "Why?" But we already know the answer.
------------
* - But who really expects statists and collectivists to be honest, anyway?
** - Again, the numbers show a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, meaning "no effect on crime" is statistically the BEST result the antis can hope for.