[Vision2020] Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? (was 11 year girl)

heirdoug at aim.com heirdoug at aim.com
Thu Jul 26 08:05:52 PDT 2007



Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Part 2

by Benedict D. LaRosa, November 2002



What about the experience of other countries? In 1997, just 12 months 
after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 
percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the 
state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was 
passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with 
firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a 
firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New 
South Wales rose almost 20 percent.



In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed 
nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the 
Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported,



“In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in 
Britain’s major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning 
gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established 
that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded 
individual.”



The Manchester Guardian of January 14, 1999, lamented that their city 
was being called “Gunchester.” Police sources were quoted as saying 
that guns had become “almost a fashion accessory” among young 
criminals. Some gangs are armed with fully automatic weapons. The 
police risk confronting teenagers on mountain bikes brandishing machine 
guns. A 1971 Cambridge University study showed that in heavily 
gun-controlled Great Britain, “the use of firearms in crime was very 
much less before 1920 when Britain had no controls of any sort.”



In fact, crime has increased so much in Australia, Canada, and Britain, 
all of which have strict gun-control laws, that the Wall Street Journal 
has since reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now 
substantially lower than in those three countries.



Gun control abroad



In Switzerland, every draft-age male is required to maintain a firearm 
in his home, yet the Swiss murder rate is only 15 percent of the U.S. 
rate. An added benefit is that no foreign enemy has invaded Switzerland 
in centuries. Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a 
negligible crime rate.



But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite 
dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 
1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 
1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million 
Armenians were exterminated.



Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 
million Jews and others were exterminated.



China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million 
political dissidents were exterminated.



Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 
100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.



Uganda established gun control in 1970 — from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 
people were exterminated.



Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one 
million educated people were exterminated.



In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on 
May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra 
Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the 
recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up 
defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were 
taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.



Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated 
in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless.



The Columbine shootings



On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a 
victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, 
addressed a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. He pointed 
out that the first recorded act of violence occurred when Cain slew his 
brother Abel:



“The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the ... the 
National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for 
the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.”



He went on to say,



“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how 
quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA [National 
Rifle Association]. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I 
do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA 
because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s 
death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended.”



He added,



“When something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs, politicians 
immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek 
to pass more restrictive laws that erode away our personal and private 
liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan 
[perpetrators of the Columbine massacre] would not have been stopped by 
metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends 
months planning this type of massacre.... Political posturing and 
restrictive legislation are not the answers.”



Crime and gun control



Besides their inherent disregard for laws, criminals are protected from 
many of the requirements imposed upon law-abiding citizens. The U.S. 
Supreme ruled in the case of Hayes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968) that 
because it would be incriminating, a criminal cannot be required to 
register a gun or be charged with possession of an unregistered gun. 
The Court said,



We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against 
self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecution either for 
failure to register a firearm ... or for possession of an unregistered 
firearm.



According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), 93 
percent of the guns used in crimes are not obtained through lawful 
purchase, so waiting periods, registration, and licensing schemes don’t 
work anyway.



Forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Smith has evaluated 5,000 mentally 
disturbed adults and children from Harlem to Tennessee. Her book, The 
Scarred Heart (Callisto Publishing Co., Knoxville, Tenn.), is based on 
her experience interviewing violent children and teenagers and reflects 
the findings of her national survey of violent and nonviolent youths 
aged 10-19. She labels many gun-control proposals as simply “feel-good 
solutions.”



In conclusion, gun control is an ineffective tool in fighting crime and 
is counterproductive to that end because it leaves people vulnerable to 
criminals. Decades of gun control have done nothing to stop crime, save 
lives, or make our streets safer. People who use violence are not 
likely to feel constrained by gun-control laws. (As one theoretical 
criminal is purported to have said, “Laws is for the law-abiding, and 
we ain’t, so they don’t apply to us.”)



Gun control and self-defense



People who obey gun-control laws are less able to defend themselves 
against those who don’t obey those same laws. Moreover, there is no 
reason to believe that a war on guns will rid American society of guns 
any more than the war on drugs has eradicated drugs from our society. 
Those who wish to purchase illegal guns will be able to do so on the 
black market as easily as they purchase drugs.



The consequence of gun control is a society in which violent, 
anti-social people are armed while peaceful, law-abiding people are 
disarmed. Legislating gun safety results in greater safety for 
criminals only. Laws intended to keep guns from criminals end up 
keeping guns from some of the thousands of people who could use them to 
defend themselves and others daily, often without having to fire a shot.



Guns, which take innocent lives, also save innocent lives. A person 
left defenseless in time of need by a gun-control law feels no comfort 
at the thought that somewhere someone might not be killed because of 
that law. Registering automobiles and licensing drivers has not 
prevented drive-by shootings, road rage, bank robberies, drug deals, or 
any crime in which automobiles are used. Perhaps the question should 
be, if you had to defend yourself, would you feel more comfortable with 
or without a gun?



Common sense dictates that inanimate objects, such as guns, are not 
responsible for human behavior. We don’t hold a match responsible for 
arson or a camera responsible for pornography. We rightly hold the 
people who misuse these tools liable. The same should be true for guns. 
As a judge stated in the 1878 Arkansas case of Wilson v. State,



If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army 
pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and 
gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.



If we don’t heed the advice of that wise judge, we may find ourselves 
fulfilling the prophecy of an unknown prophet who said, “Those who 
hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don’t.”



Benedict LaRosa is a historian and writer with undergraduate and 
graduate degrees in history from the U.S. Air Force Academy and Duke 
University, respectively.
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
=0



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list