“I intend to be among the outlaws”

By June, 2008 the United States Supreme Court may offer some clarification of the Second Amendment and the rights of individuals to own guns.  But, their interpretation may be so narrow that it has little impact outside the source of the case, Washington, D.C., leaving the rest of the nation still debating gun control. 

If we are going to seriously entertain wholesale legislation of gun control shouldn’t we first find data that will guide us to a reasonable conclusion?  To determine the usefulness of gun control we need to study locations that have strict gun control laws and locations that have more relaxed gun control laws.  This will give us a window to see how well gun control works.  If gun control works you would expect areas with strict gun control laws to have lower crime rates and areas with lenient gun control laws to have higher crime rates.

Let’s start with Washington, D.C. where handguns were banned in 1976.  Before the ban, Washington, D.C.’s murder rate had been declining.  For the 31 years since the ban, Washington, D.C. has almost always ranked number one in the nation in murder rates.  Mayor Anthony Williams must believe the best way to prevent criminals from using guns and cut gun related crime is to post a sign stating, “No one who lives in the District of Columbia is allowed to own a handgun.”  Will that deter criminals?

Australia is a good source of data because they are like the United States, with similar access to guns before their banning most guns in 1996.  Following the ban armed robberies rose by 51%, assaults rose by 24% and kidnappings rose by 43%. Homicides remained essentially unchanged or slightly higher or lower depending on the sources of your statistics.  In Australia, just as in Washington, D.C., disarming the citizens led to more crime rather than less crime. 

Whose side is the government on?  If you were a criminal what would you prefer if you were going to break into my home?  Would you prefer to wonder if I had a gun or would you prefer to have the government guarantee you that I did not have a gun?  I think the answer is clear. 

Maybe we should look to England for answers.  After all they are more civilized than we Americans and have had stringent gun laws in place for many years, adding a handgun ban in 1997.  But, according to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years following the passage of the handgun ban.  It appears the criminals were not obeying the new law.  The United Nations reported in 2000 that the crime rate in England was higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.  In England it seems the “No Guns Allowed” signs are not working in the best interests of the public. 

What about locations that have lenient gun control?  Does allowing fairly easy access to guns affect the crime rates?  Switzerland requires every able-bodied adult to keep a semi-automatic weapon at home.  According to gun control logic their crime rates should be staggeringly high.  Yet their crime rates have historically been low. Their last mass murder was in 2001.  Could the criminal be frightened knowing that every household owned a semi-automatic rifle?  This required semi-automatic rifle is the same style that was once banned in our country and gun control activists want reinstated.

What if a state made concealed weapons permits more available?  Allowing people to carry a hidden gun must increase crime rates.  Interestingly, states that passed concealed carry laws cut their murder rates by an average of 8.5%. 

In 2004 the National Academy of Sciences reviewed roughly 500 journal articles, books, and government publications.  They studied over 80 gun-control measures. They could not find even one gun-control measure that cut violent crime. The year before the CDC evaluated several types of gun restrictions and found “none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.”

Gun control simply does not work.  Restrictions on gun ownership increase crime. Think of the lives that might have been saved had we put all the gun control energy and money into finding and removing those who use guns for violent crimes. 

We need to use factual information in the decision making process.  Far too often these laws are knee-jerk reflexes to a tragic event.  Passing legislation with emotion and without facts is costing lives.  Edward Abbey summed it up saying, “The rifle is the weapon of democracy…. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.  Only the police, the secret police, the military…. Only the government – and a few outlaws.  I intend to be among the outlaws.”  I agree.

Print Page