Living in California as I do, you might presume that I get a number of opportunities every month to discuss gun control. You'd be right. But I'm no longer arguing that we have rights guaranteed under the Constitution or that some new law is not needed.
I'm now arguing that gun control is a complete failure.
Why am I doing this? Because it's true. All one has to do is compare the number and types of crimes since 1968, when the Gun Control Act originated, to those prior to 1968. Not only that, with each new law, politicians have promised us that the new law would "reduce crimes with guns" and would make life safer for all of us. But, like campaign promises, it hasn't happened.
Since passing the sweeping 1968 Gun Control act, under public pressure after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Congress has layered ever-increasing restrictions on the manufacture, distribution, sale, ownership and use of firearms.
Among the laws peddled by the anti-rights Gun-Control Lobby have been age limitations, ammo restrictions, waiting periods, zoning restrictions, special security requirements, the banning of the mythical "assault weapon", limits on magazine capacities, limits on exercising your rights to once-a-month, gun-free zones, gun licensing, owner licensing, gun registration, outright bans and others.
None of these restrictive laws, individually or collectively, have shown any significant impact on crimes committed against people or even crimes committed with guns. A government report showed that the so-called "Brady Bill", touted as a "significant step" in reducing gun crimes, had no measurable effect on crime. We have also seen how so called gun free zones have turned school campuses into defenseless victim killing zones.
"Yes, but..." begin the anti-rights crowd when they go on the defensive. They will tell you that existing laws didn't go far enough or that the laws were compromised in legislative sessions. They'll tell you that if only they could enact comprehensive control (read as piles of red tape) the numbers would show they are right. Really?
Great Britain has, since 1997, had a defacto ban on almost all firearms, especially handguns. Yet, as the 20th Century closed, the UK began arming it's famous "Bobbies" with guns for the first time in over 100 years. One story in the British media described the "gun problem" by saying that in the last ten years there have been more reported gun crimes than in the thirty years before the ban. So much for a utopian gun control example.
Only one set of laws shows any appreciable statistical impact on personal crimes. Not too surprisingly, these laws are not restrictive, but liberally permissive in the classical sense. These laws allow citizens with clean records to legally carry concealed firearms after taking the state mandated training. While restrictive laws do little or nothing to impact crimes against people, these "shall-issue" concealed carry laws can be shown reduce crimes against people. Why? Because criminals are no longer sure their victims are defenseless. A victim who fights back is fighting for their life, which the criminal threatens in robbery, rape and other crimes. And they fight to win. Because of this, it is the criminal who is at a disadvantage, not the citizenry.
So, what should we be asking our legislators to do? We should be tell them to focus on controlling criminal behavior instead of trying to control access to inanimate objects. We should also make it clear that criminals can not profit from their illegal actions should they be injured during a crime. If they step "outside the law" by instigating the crime, they waive their rights to civil suits against their victims. To further discourage repeat offenders we should implement three-strikes laws for felony convictions to keep the serious criminals off the street. Three-strikes laws have been remarkably effective in reducing crime because repeat offenders are most likely to commit multiple crimes before being caught.
The Gun-Control Lobby continues to push against a door marked "pull", never quite realizing that, even after 40 years, pushing just isn't going to open the door. At least, not until they realize they have been pushing in the wrong direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment