Suppose those doctored FBI statistics support our position despite having been (maybe) fudged a bit?
Link to the FBI data for 2017:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/violent-crime
Let's look first at national averages:
Violent crime: 394 per 100,000 population
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: 5.3 per 100,000
Rape: 41.7 per 100,000
Robbery: 98.0 per 100,000
Aggravated assault: 248.9 per 100,000
Now let's look at New Jersey:
Violent crime: 228.8 per 100,000 population
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: 3.6 per 100,000
Rape: 16.7 per 100,000
Robbery: 87.7 per 100,000
Aggravated assault: 120.8 per 100,000
Wow! New Jersey is better than the national average in all categories. Gun control must work, right? Then let's look at Pennsylvania, which is right across the river from NJ. PA allows unlicensed open carry, and a concealed carry permit costs (IIRC) $25 for five years, with no training requirement, only a basic criminal background check.
Pennsylvania:
Violent crime: 313.3 per 100,000 population [well below national average]
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: 5.8 per 100,000 [
slightly worse than the national average]
Rape: 32.8 per 100,000 [well below the national average]
Robbery: 92.1 per 100,000 [below the national average]
Aggravated assault: 182.6 per 100,000 [well below the national average]
Hmmm ... New Jersey's numbers are a bit better than Pennsylvania's. BUT ... Pennsylvania's numbers are still much better than the national average, and not all that far behind New Jersey, withOUT the benefit of the draconian (and potentially unconstitutional) anti-gun laws. Then factor in the possibility that New Jersey may (speculation on my part!) be cooking the books on what they report to the FBI more than Pennsylvania does, and I think even the FBI's statistics bear out the argument that draconian gun control isn't as effective in controlling crime as the proponents want us to believe.