If Guns Kill People Then Spoons Make People Fat
I just received a text message from a friend of mine, Chris Gallahan, which reads:
Gun crimes have gone up 60% in D.C. since the temporary gun ban was removed. This is why we need gun control/regulation.
Chris was born and raised on the Northeast coast where gun control is simply a way of life. I, on the contrary, was born and raised in Wisconsin where guns are a normal part of life. While I don’t believe that either of us are 100% correct, I find it interesting arguing this topic with him because we both have a different background and subsequently, a radically different viewpoint.
My initial response to this statement is an inquiry to where this statistic has come from. To get the time frame correct, it’s important to understand that the United States Supreme Court overruled a gun ban in D.C. in June of 2008. In July of 2009 homicides were reported to have dropped 17% for the year as reported by the Washington Post. By September crime rates dropped 27.2% in the past year, with 99 homicides recorded so far this year, compared to 136 as of September last year as reported by The Eagle. It has been argued that the decline in the economy may have caused this drop in violent crimes but historically speaking, a weaker economy produces an increase in crime.
The fundamental question regarding gun control is if the United States Bill of Rights actually means what it says. Maybe this is a stupid idea, but I kinda just think we should assume that the founders of our Bill of Rights didn’t intend to turn this document into a riddle. They were pretty clear on every other point they made, so why would they play tricks with this one? It’s pretty safe to assume that they actually meant what they said. Even if they didn’t, well that’s just too bad because they signed it into the Constitution. Good, now that we’re all in agreement that law abiding citizens of the United States of America have a legal right to bear arms we can move on talking about effects of gun control.
Gun control simply doesn’t work. To illustrate my point here we first need to define what “work” means. The point of gun control is to reduce or eliminate the use of gun related crimes. The fact of the matter is that the District of Columbia has had this draconian gun law for over three decades, and yet it has consistently led the nation in murder rates and in crime rates. That means that either the gun ban doesn’t work or else there are just lots of really angry people in D.C. who can’t deal with the compulsion to murder their neighbors.
In D.C., wealthy residents live out in Bethesda or Chevy Chase or Old Town Alexandria. They have a competent police department. They don’t have a crack house next door. But single moms that are struggling to work in Anacostia are facing a legal system where they’re told they can’t protect themselves if a robber comes in the window. When you disarm law abiding citizens it’s only logical that you’ve made them more vulnerable to violent crimes.
Let’s face it. The real problem here isn’t whether or not we should restrict guns. The real problem is the person behind the violent crimes. If someone wants to commit a violent crime it’s going to happen whether they have a gun or not. Why aren’t we putting more effort to repairing the problems of our society (generally stems from the violent individuals upbringing) rather than just removing the tools by which they commit crimes? Taking away the legal right to bear arms will only delay a determined individual from obtaining a weapon of some sort, even a gun, and continuing with their crime.
It’s also been explained to me that because I have not ever lived in a city my views may change after living a few years in Los Angeles. I’d like to clarify a few facts:
- The city with the highest murder rate is Compton California with a rate of 67.1 per 100,000 people. Guess what? California has extremely strict gun control laws. If gun control works then why is Compton pulling the #1 rank?
- Washington D.C., which used to have even stricter gun control laws comes in at 13th place with a rate of 35.4 per 100,000 people. Again, I can clearly see how effective gun control has been in this area.
- To address the opinion that my views will change when I have lived in a city that actually has to deal with crime, I think it’s time to point out that Milwaukee Wisconsin ranks in at #32 with a rate of 20.6 per 100,000 people. By comparison, the city that is going to change my opinion on gun control is Los Angeles (a neighbor of Compton) which comes in at a cool #73.
My purpose in bringing these facts to the surface is to show that while gun control is a personal opinion, I’m not a trust fund baby who’s grown up sheltered from the real world reality of living in a “city”. In 2006 I bought a loft in Milwaukee and within the first week there was a delivery driver who was robbed and shot dead within a block of my front door. Don’t tell me that I don’t understand what it means to live in a city where crime is a problem.
If we look at this same point from a different perspective it could be argued that I am just now moving to a city where gun control actually makes a difference. I could buy that argument if the facts didn’t indicate that gun control doesn’t work. Of the cities with the top 15 murder rates, 3 of those cities are in New Jersey (which has relatively strict gun control laws), 3 of those cities are in California which has very strict gun control laws and Washington D.C. also makes that list which had extremely strict gun control laws. I fail to understand how living in a city with gun control laws that still lead the nation in violent, gun-related crime is going to convince me that gun control really does work.
I don’t carry a gun on my body but I always have one within reach while at home. I don’t ever want to be forced to use a gun to inflict harm. I do, however, feel passionately that I have a fundamental right to protect myself with the same means that others are capable of inflicting harm. I will give up my gun when every other gun has been removed from this nation (including law enforcement) and it has been proven impossible to smuggle firearms in. Obviously, this is simply never going to happen.
Okay, I’m off my soapbox now. Let the hillbilly, redneck, militant, psycho comments fly.
3 Comments
I must agree with you that gun control doesn’t work. We found that prohibition didn’t work and that banning spoons won’t stop people from over-eating.
I also am aware that many “law-abiding” citizens are not allowed to own guns or have them in their possession. While I’m not sure that the average Joe or Sally citizen needs to own a bazooka or maintain a mega-arsenal, I do believe there is a right to bear arms.
Persons who are not allowed to protect themselves become subject to attack because the “meanies” who desire to do harm to others tend to be whimps and only pick on the helpless. Police are only “good guys” when they are helping get a kitten out of a tree. Generally the modern community police departments make it their duty to arrest as many people for as many crimes as they can pretend happened. The police want to “look good” and justify their jobs by maintaining high arrest records as possible. (Ever wonder why there are more people in prison in the US than any other nation in the “free world”?)
I know of one man who was arrested for “not petting” a police dog. By refusing, the other officer charged him with resisting arrest. He accused the man of “fighting with the dog” which is the same as obstructing an officer… the man has a felony record… and this a happened at the man’s home. Good thing I wasn’t there because I would have shot the damn dog! I don’t believe in using animals in place of human beings as police officers.
I hope you own a gun or two Jeff. I hope you protect yourself from those wishing to do you harm!!
Yes the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to bear arms…in a well regulated militia.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
While I doubt hunters would ever be a militia, I don’t have a problem with them taking their rifles out to go shoot deer if that’s how they get their kicks (or especially if they’re doing it for food). You still wouldn’t be able to convince me that there’s need for ordinary citizens to have assault rifles and handguns. More studies than can mention show the risk of getting shot increases for people that own guns. While I doubt you’ll have an accident in your home, those numbers are still there.
There’s also the evidence of most of Western Europe, which has far more Draconian gun laws than the U.S., and as a result has much lower incidents of gun violence. Yeah there’s other ways to be killed, but a gun is still the most efficient way, allowing for the least amount of time for recourse and reconsideration. While I personally have no use for a gun, I understand an all out ban is both unfeasible and would never happen. However, there are still loop holes on background checks, permits, waiting periods, limits of guns allowed to own, etc., that can be improved to make gun ownership the truly difficult privilege it should be.
Regan,
Given your quote (which is correct) the right to bear arms is not restricted to a well regulated militia. It's not a matter of whether there's a need or not, rather it's the principle of whether it's allowed or not.
-Jeff