|
|
|
|||||
|
George, The most direct and rational way to evaluate gun control, in my opinion, is to look at what such laws are ostensibly expected to do. That is, to bring down violent crime. If gun laws worked as advertised, any area changing their laws in a manner making guns more difficult to acquire would see a major and lasting reduction in violent crime. Yet studies show that in places where harsher gun restrictions have been implemented in recent history (such as Chicago and the District of Columbia), crime has not experienced a sudden drop. In fact in many cases it has actually increased. Some relevant data can be found at:
The problem is that those who commit crimes with guns (particularly murder) are overwhelmingly not average law-abiding citizens, but hardened violent criminals with little to lose. Legal restrictions may indeed dissuade someone whose interest in a gun is only for sport, and who fears for the future of his career and family, as well as of course his freedom, if he were to be caught doing something illegal. Gang members, on the other hand, are likely to be less concerned with the law, already being career criminals, and more likely to simply buy a gun on the black market. After all, black-market gun sales are one of their typical sources of income, so they may already be familiar with illegal suppliers. Further, in cases when someone is determined to kill someone else, they are sometimes not only unconcerned with legal sanctions, but apparently not even concerned for their own survival. We can see this in the many school shootings which ended in suicides by the gunmen. It is hard to imagine that a law will be enough to dissuade such individuals from using guns; indeed, many of them clearly broke laws in acquiring them. Not only do gun control laws not have the intended effect on violent criminals, but they actually work to their benefit. Firstly, restricting the legal supply of guns does not automatically reduce the demand for them. Any demand which is not fulfilled by the legal market, then, is left to the black market, providing it with more customers. Illegal suppliers, often gangsters, will be happy to see such an expansion in the black market which they profit from. Secondly, as far as gun laws actually do dissuade some people from owning or carrying guns, they provide a safer environment for criminals, making the situation less safe for the rest of us. If they have reason to suspect that many of their potential victims are armed, they will naturally be much more cautious about attempting muggings or burglary. This is not to suggest that the average citizen should get into, or will win, a gunfight in such a situation. But cases of would-be criminals being deterred by armed citizens, mostly without shots being fired, can be read about at www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11310/armed-citizen-18/, and in a more scholarly context www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html. Not coincidentally, the mass shootings in the US have all occurred in officially declared "gun-free zones." Those with serious criminal intent are looking for the softest targets, and any gun control which is truly effective in reducing the number of armed citizens is giving them exactly what they want. Brendan Ferreri-Hanberry (Electronic mail, December 18, 2012) ps: A wide variety of further relevant facts can be found at www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html.
|
