Gun Control vs. Gun Rights

    "MOΛΩN ΛABÉ" *

 

 

Introduction:

This is a topic so important to me that I sometimes have difficulty deciding on how to best present it. There are so many facts and so many sources and so much misinformation. Perhaps the best way to lay out the case against “gun control” is to review and discredit the most common logic used to justify it. I will compile a brief list of the most common arguments I am faced with concerning “gun control” and counter it with documented facts and what should pass for “common sense”.

 

“Gun Control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals”…

This idea that Criminals are affected by gun laws and that stricter gun legislation will somehow control criminal behavior is at the root of nearly all gun control arguments. Simple logic should indicate otherwise. Criminals, by definition, do not have regard for the law. This is backed up by numerous studies that show that legally attained guns account for almost none of the violent crime in this country. Better enforcement of existing laws would perhaps help but further infringing on our 2nd amendment rights only serves to disarm law abiding citizens.

ü      There are approximately 240 million privately owned firearms in the US, owned by approximately 65 million people.

ü      Of those, approximately 75 million handguns are owned by 30 million citizens.

ü      Fewer than .2% of those firearms will be used in ANY illegal activity this year.

ü      Fewer than .01% of violent crimes committed with handguns are committed by legally registered owners.

 

“Fewer Guns make a community safer”…

Guns aren’t evil, they are a tool, a tool which can be used for both “good” and “evil” purposes. The fact is that they are used much more often for the cause of “good” and the prevention of “evil”. I’ll let the facts speak for themselves…

ü      Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals.

ü      Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 15 nationwide polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. Most sources put the total well over 1,000,000.

ü      When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances. This is not because of missed shots or improper use, it is due to the fact that in nearly 99% of cases studied merely showing the weapon or occasionally firing a warning shot was all that was necessary to deter the would-be criminal.

ü      A Department of Justice-sponsored survey found that 40% of felons had chosen not to commit at least one specific crime for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims.

In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:

ü      no change in suicide rates

ü      .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths

ü      5% decline in rapes

ü      7% decline in aggravated assaults

ü      8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992.

 

Using 1995 statistics, this amounts to:

ü      1 more accidental gun death

ü      316 less murders

ü      939 less rapes

ü      14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually.

 

Some other interesting cases include:

ü      Washington D.C. began a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between the years of 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200% (300% for handguns), while the U.S. national rate rose 12%.

ü      Chicago, IL holds the national record of 599 murders in 2003 thanks in large part to its highly restrictive gun laws.

ü      New York City, With less than 3% of the U.S. population, annually accounts for more than one-eighth of the nation's handgun- related homicides. Since it became a felony to go outside the city to evade its virtual handgun ban, the homicide rate in N.Y.C has risen three times faster than the national average.

ü      Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violent crime. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Crime rate

Florida

United States

homicide rate

-36%

-.4%

firearm homicide rate

-37%

+15%

handgun homicide rate

-41%

+24%

 

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. Only .007% of Florida CCW permits have been revoked because of a crime after licensure (and not necessarily a violent crime involving a gun).

 

As of 1998, 31 states had right-to-carry laws, about half the U.S. population lives in these states. States with favorable concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than states with restrictive concealed carry laws. Overall, the homicide rate for states with favorable carry laws is 31% lower, and the robbery rate is 36% lower, than for states with restrictive concealed carry laws.

 

“There is no need for private citizens to own guns for protection, the government/police will protect you”…

 

My first reaction would be that in a true “life or death situation” it is unlikely that the police would be able to assist you quickly enough. The role of the police in the majority of violent crimes is not prevention but rather to take a report and attempt to track down the perpetrator. Secondly, even if we mistakenly assume that the police or other “authority” is able to fully protect us, that does not invalidate our right to protect ourselves, and make no mistake about this, you do have a right to defend yourself. Most cities provide public transportation but we are not required to be reliant on it. Nearly every community provides a fire department but we are certainly allowed and encouraged to own an extinguisher. Lastly, and I realize this seems sarcastic, if you are indeed well protected by the authorities then why be concerned whether or not I own a gun? If you have a reasonable expectation to be protected from lawless and violent criminals with guns then certainly you would be safe from law abiding citizens who may also own guns.

 

ü      A criminal who is able to disarm you with your gun directed at them could far more easily take your phone before you dial 911

ü      Guns are successfully used defensively between 760,000 and 2,000,000 times per year, usually without firing a shot.

ü      As of 1998, no CCW permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

 

“There is no need for people to own assault weapons”…

 

Again, banning “assault weapons” only removes them from the hands of law abiding citizens, usually collectors. Also, the term “assault weapon” is very misleading and usually based on the appearance of a particular weapon. The ban on “assault weapons” does not include military style fully automatic weapons, those have been restricted since 1934 and not a single legally owned fully automatic rifle has ever been used to commit a violent crime.

 

ü      “Assault weapons” were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.

ü      As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.

ü      In an October of 1996 campaign stop, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later at a political rally, Bill Clinton cited Officer Seaberry's death as a reason to outlaw “armor piercing” bullets. Officer Seaberry died in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved. “Armor piercing” bullets have been referred to in the media repeatedly as "cop killers” yet as of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an “armor piercing” bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.

ü      Data from several states and large cities show that “military look-alikes” constitute between 0-3% of guns used in crimes and constitute only 1.5% of guns seized by police. Rifles in general, including semi-autos, are involved in only 3% of homicides.

 

“What about the gun-show loophole”…

 

Yes, what about that. The “gun show loophole” is pure deception, period. This deception comes in a few different flavors so I will quickly cover them all. First there is the issue of “unregistered or unlicensed dealers”. There are lots of vendors at a gun show. Some sell guns, some sell knives, some sell books and t-shirts and some sell popcorn. Every vendor at a gun show that actually sells guns for a living is licensed. The vendor who sells shirts with unflattering pictures of Hillary Clinton on them is what is referred to as an “unlicensed dealer”. There is also some misunderstanding about the rules a dealer must follow at a gun show. They are the exact same rules that must be followed at his shop or anywhere else. All the same papers must be filed and all the same background checks must be run. Also present at gun shows are regular private citizens like you and I. They may choose to sell their own private property, including guns, within the laws of that area. This is not a right they are granted by being present at a gun show, this is a private owner selling their private property in the same manner they could at their home, in a garage sale, in the newspaper or anywhere else. That is the “gun show loophole”. Even if there were such a thing as the “gun show loophole” it isn’t being exploited by violent criminals. Consider the following sources of weapons used in violent crimes:

 

ü      39.6% friends or family

ü      39.2% “the street”

ü      8.3% retail store

ü      3.8% pawn shop

ü      1.0% flee market

ü      0.7% gun show

 

“The 2nd amendment is not valid in this day and age”…

 

 

Some people will assert that the “founding fathers” never envisioned the size of our population or the kind of weaponry that is available today essentially stating that the second amendment is not relevant any longer because of the changing times. The fact is that many of the “founding fathers” felt strongly that most if not all of the population should be armed both to help in the defense of our nation and to defend our own liberty from any oppressive government including our own government. It was Thomas Jefferson who said "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

 

Furthermore the idea that the fundamental rights laid out in our constitution can not be applied to the modern day is ridiculous. Let’s apply that reasoning to the 1st amendment. Certainly the “founding fathers” never imagined the tools of communication we have today. Tools like the internet which have a profound impact on our rights to free speech and press are surely far more powerful than anything fathomed in Thomas Jefferson’s wildest dreams. Should those rights be limited to the use of the manual printing press and delivery via horse and cart?

 

The bottom line:

 

Gun control does not prevent or even deter crime. On the contrary, whether we look at individual cities, states or nations, any time that guns are denied to citizens crime increases or worse, an oppressive government abuses it’s people. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi.

 

An armed populace, in every instance, results in reduced crime and/or increased freedom. The only groups of people with a rational reason to fear a lawful and armed population are criminals and tyrants.

 

Sources:

"1995 Uniform Crime Reports." Pages 68-78. Federal Bureau of Investigation  - "Accident Facts." Page 27. National Safety Council, 1998. - Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. - Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." - NRA Institute for Legislative Action  (NRA-ILA) - www.nra.org - www.flashbunny.org - http://www.bradycampaign.org  

* Bonus points for anyone who can give the historical reference of the “subheading” of this article

 

 

Contact the author at McPundit@RochesterWatch.com  or  Mark@RochesterWatch.com