More Gun Control Laws?

by Chip Englander
America’s concern, “how did we ever let guns get so out of control,” is totally unfounded. Guns are harder to acquire today than it has been for over 30 years. As late as 1967, a 13 year old in most states could buy a rifle. Nearly all of the New York City public high schools, for example, had gun clubs, and plenty of competitions were held. In 1960, 19,907 words were needed to define the Federal Gun Laws. Today, we need 4 times that amount (88,413). This excluds local and state gun regulations, such as California’s, which today contains over 158,000 words, and counting, with more gun control measures coming up for a vote.Yet, this increase in fire-arm control coincided with the rapid increase in crime in America, which began in the 1960s, and did not subsided until recently. 

Now, despite this increase in gun control, The Michigan Daily contended in an editorial last month that we are far from where we need to be in this department. Recent tragic events, they said, such as those at Columbine, point to this conclusion. Yet, they never explained how more gun regulations could have prevented such an incident. After all, the Columbine killers had already broken 17 gun regulations; more control would have just meant they would have broke more laws, nothing more. Plus, even if we had reached a “no gun utopia,” how could we have prevented the pipe bombs that were used? We could not have. Thus, the Columbine tragedy in no way could have been prevented by more gun control regulations.

Some critics assert that today’s National Guard acts as our nation’s militia. However, the whole purpose of the militia, of which the 2nd Amendment spoke, was to be a last resort to prevent a tyrannical government. One cannot prevent a tyrannical government with government employees, which is precisely what the National Guard is. The National Guard is armed and maintained by the government, and could not be expected to prevent the government from any sort of aggressive action.

Some people assert that America’s guns are enjoyed for sport only, and maintain that the government should not allow guns simply to preserve hunting. Here, this argument rests upon a false premise: that guns are legally used only for hunting. In reality, fire-arms constitute a way of life in many parts of the country, not just for sporting purposes, but for protecting people’s property.

However, this does not get at the heart of the issue. Specifically, there is a large misconception about what someone does once they acquire a gun. In 98% of cases where a gun is used defensively, it is not actually fired. Usually, a simple brandishing of a weapon causes enough concern to prevent a criminal from targeting you as a possible victim of his next crime.

Furthermore, the evidence proves that fewer guns do not result in fewer crimes. A quick state-by-state analysis reveals this. For example, states which forbid people to obtain a concealed weapons permit suffer a shocking 81% higher incidence of violent crime then others. The same states also suffer from a 24% higher rate of property crime.

One might respond that this is due to a cultural difference among states. After all, some states do certainly have a different attitude towards life. However, the idea that these varying attitudes also influence the gun culture of a state is totally unfounded. If that was true, one might see a decrease in crime after laxer gun control laws in some Midwestern states, for example, but at the same time, there might be a decrease in crime only after increased gun control in some states, such as in the North. However, this theory does not hold water. On average, violent and property crimes have decreased in all states after relaxing their gun laws. This has happened in states throughout the nation. This correlation continues inversely too. For every 1% decrease in gun ownership, there results a 3% increase in violent crime. In the 1990’s, for example, the decrease in crime has coincided with an increase in gun ownership.

Once again, one might respond with, “if this is true, how come other nations, in Europe for example, have such lower crime rates?” Essentially making the above state vs. state argument, on an international level. Well, that’s basically what the Daily asserted when it said that our nation’s belief in gun rights “are laughable in other advanced nations. These countries have all reaped the benefits of strict gun control policies or blanket prohibition on private gun ownership in the form of saved lives.” Many of these “advanced nations,” are the same nations that still believe in socialism, and once scoffed at the notion of democracy. But, this is beside the point. Let’s examine the assumption that America routinely beats all other “advanced nations” in the race for the worst crime. Now, it is true, that America’s murder rate is 6 times higher in the US than most other industrialized nations. However, America’s record in the minor violence department is certainly comparable to other nations. But, we must also remember that violent crimes (which murder is only one part of), only make-up a small portion of the serious world crime, with the largest proportion being property crimes (roughly 90%). Now, let’s compare America’s record in this department. Canada has a 12% higher burglary rate. Australia, 40% higher. England and Wales? 30% higher. Sweden, a nation widely believed to have very little crime: 35% higher. Holland, another country believed to have little crime, has a whopping 84% higher rate than the US. Only France and Switzerland have a lower rate than the US. Also, whenever someone speaks of how many foreign nations have less crime, and more gun laws than us, they leave out how many nations have less crime, and less gun laws than us. This is the case in aforementioned Switzerland for example, which has among the laxest gun laws in the world.

Now what would happen if we could magically remove all guns, even ones criminals could get access to? In that case, criminals would commit their crimes with lesser weapons, just as the students of Columbine could have. They could have just as easily used pipe bombs, for example. A run-of-the-mill criminal without a gun, knowing others don’t have guns, would just use weapons such as a knife. Crime would not disappear with a disappearance of guns. And what about suicide rates? A state-by-state analysis reveals that suicide rates in states with lax gun laws are comparable to states with strict gun laws. You can’t stop someone from jumping off a building, or standing in front of a train (this of course assumes we agree that Euthanasia in wrong, but that is a different discussion for a different day).

What can be done to further decrease the crime rate in America? To begin with, we could start enforcing the laws that are already on the books. America’s gun laws are not being heavily enforced, and more gun laws won’t change that. Take, for example, the Brady Bill, a widely supported and widely touted gun control measure. There have been less than 10 convictions based on this law. The current presidential administration has not chosen prosecution of gun law violations as a high priority. Now, this is not to say that they might not have made the right decision. There are certainly plenty of other compelling laws to choose to enforce over our nation’s gun laws, and my point here is not to criticize the current administration, but simply to point out that if we want a decrease in crime, we don’t need more gun laws, but rather enforcement of the current ones.

There will always be a need for common-sense gun control measures; however, the liberal assertion that no amount of gun control will ever be enough is totally unfounded. They choose to support their position with no facts, but rather, pure opinion and speculation. I am not one to dismiss a position based on how extreme my senses tell me it is, but a dismissal of an argument is justified when nothing is offered up to support it, when there is at the same time so much evidence that totally refutes the other side. MR