Every time we talk about expanding gun rights anywhere–and by expansion, what I really mean is the restoration of our rights–some anti-Second Amendment type will claim that such laws will simply lead to more violence.

It’s the whole “the streets will run red with blood” argument we’ve all heard a thousand times, just sung to a slightly different tune.

In Florida, they’re talking about Constitutional Carry, which will go a long way toward making the Gunshine State live up to its unofficial nickname.

Sure enough, we’ve got people claiming it’ll lead to bloodshed.

Gun violence has increased in Orlando. According to the Gun Violence Archive, in the three years since Sabatini was elected, the firearm homicide death rate in his district rose 93%, even though the national rate increased by only 19% during the same time.

Sabatini and Lott are wrong. The academic literature is clear: weaker gun laws increase crime. Homicide data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that states with permitless carry laws have seen a 5.1% increase in gun homicide rates annually, compared with a 1.2% annual increase for states without such laws. Kansas, Mississippi, and Missouri saw large surges in gun homicides after passing permitless carry.

Lott concluded that permitless carry and weakening concealed-carry laws will help reduce crime based on his own analysis that is filled with errors. He misclassified at least two studies and padded the results with studies that aren’t about concealed-carry laws. He included studies with severe errors, relied on heavily outdated research, and failed to include 23 national level studies analyzing the impact of concealed-carry laws.

And yet, despite those claims, the nationwide surge of gun right restoration coincided with the plummeting of the crime rate from the 1990s until very recently.

It should be noted that the upticks seem to coincide not with gun rights restoration, but with an upsurge in support for gun control. Fascinating, right?

Oh, but he goes on with ignoring the simple facts available for anyone to see by trying to equate self-defense with lawlessness.

In 2005, Florida stood at a similar legislative crossroads when debating whether to weaken its existing gun laws by passing a Stand Your Ground (SYG) measure. History has shown that SYG has aided and abetted vigilantism rather than protecting Floridians.

A recent literature review of 25 studies examining SYG laws found that: “The existing evidence contradicts claims that expanding self-defense laws deters violent crime across the United States. In at least some contexts, including Florida, stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in violence, and there are racial inequities in the application of these laws.”

A 2013 analysis by the Urban Institute uncovered that SYG laws exacerbated racial discrepancies. Specifically, “the odds a white-on-Black homicide is found justified is 281 percent greater than the odds a white-on-white homicide is found justified.”

That last paragraph was a nice touch. The whole claim that self-defense laws are racist is the new twist, all things considered.

However, as for the studies and claims that loosening gun restrictions lead to problems, we have an issue. You see, they’re absolute nonsense. For example, the metareview in question doesn’t seem to differentiate between homicides and justifiable homicides. That’s an important distinction, but one that seems to be lacking. That’s because the researchers’ bias won’t let them acknowledge that dead bad guys are somehow a good thing.

As for the racial element, let’s remember that historically, most criminals are black men. That’s going to skew those numbers significantly.

See, the only real difference here is claiming that self-defense is vigilantism as a way to justify claims that the “streets will run red with blood.”

I’m sorry, but justified self-defense shootings aren’t a bad thing. Instead, it’s simply nature’s way of taking out the trash.

Or, if you care to frame it differently, the trash taking itself out.

It’s clear that the author has plenty of his own biases, biases he’s trying to hide behind studies. Biased studies at that.

The best claim he can make without completely ignoring reality is that restoring people’s gun rights has no real increase in crime. It may or may not drop it, depending on other factors, but it damn sure doesn’t lead to an increase. The streets aren’t running red with the blood of the innocent.

If they do run red, it’ll be with what’s left of people who thought they could take what they want and hurt who they want, only to find out the hard way that’s not the case.

You’ll excuse me if I don’t shed a tear.