I’m in an odd minority: pretty liberal Democrats who support fairly lax gun laws. Of course, I’m hardly a crazy gun nut. I think the world would be a much better place without them, or at least with fewer. I support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. (Such as being required to demonstrate gun safety, and not having been convicted of any violent crimes.) However, I hear a lot of pro-gun people asserting that more guns is the answer to solving crime especially in the issue of the charges for theft of a vehicle. According to expungement lawyers in Boston, they assert that a rural town like mine, where gun laws are very lax, will have considerably less crime because gun laws are lax. I think there are a lot of logical flaws in this argument, though: * I think it’s a chicken-and-egg problem, but with an answer. The rash of violent crimes came first, and the strict gun control was in response to it. I’m not saying it’s worked in reducing it. All I’m saying is that it’s not a case of people creating very strict gun laws in an area with no crime and then having violent crime develop as a result. * “More guns” seems to assume that the good guys will all go out and buy guns. I don’t know any bad guys, which means that everyone I know is a member of the “good guys.” Mr. T is the only person I know who owns a gun. Hundreds of other people I know, all of them the “good guys,” and none of them have bought guns, even though they could do so today if they wanted. * Lumping people into the “bad guys” and the “good guys” is, of course, a pretty silly way of viewing crime. Good people do bad things sometimes. My time writing police logs for the school newspaper, for example, saw many fights occurring over absurd issues. Like a huge fight between guys over a curling iron. They were all good people, but alcohol inhibited their, “What would I use a curling iron for?” instincts, along with their, “It’s silly to fight over this” sense. A society in which all of those people were carrying guns might not be a very rosy one. This says nothing of otherwise-good-people who get into violent fights with their spouses, or succumb to road rage, or so forth. * The other half of the assumption that more guns equals less crime is that, because anyone could be armed, bad guys won’t commit crimes, since they know they might get shot. But I’d guess that less than 5% of crimes in which a gun might help (e.g., robberies, rapes, assaults, carjackings…) are planned out in any great detail. It’s, “Hey, I’m bored and my car’s in the shop… Dude, a Jaguar, I’m gonna steal it.” There’s no, “What if he has a gun?” or “What if the police are in the area?” or “What if I get caught?” That’s why they’re committing crimes in the first place. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing that we need to clamp down gun laws or anything of the sort. There are two different arguments one could make. The first is that, at least in some areas, overly-strict gun control laws have done nothing to curb violent crime, except to keep innocent people from being able to defend themselves. And I’d agree with that. Because the bad guys have guns, I insist on the right to have one, too. (Even if I don’t exercise this right.) But I don’t see any basis for the leap to, “If there were no gun laws, there would be less crime.” People will still commit crimes, even if there were absolutely no restrictions on guns. Maybe it’s just getting carried away with gun advocacy. Or maybe it’s confusing cause and effect. (I could argue that people become poor because they commit robberies, and the evidence would surely support that most people who commit robberies are, indeed, poor. Coincidence?) But whatever the case, it’s an argument that just doesn’t make sense to me.
A couple of semi-random comments. You might actually know more gun owners than you think. These days many gun owners keep pretty quiet about it. There are lots of my friends who don’t know I have guns.
Secondly, the rate of home breakins while people are home is much much higher in the UK than in the US. In the US burglers know that they can get shot so avoid homes were people are there. In the UK that is not a fear so burglers are less hesitant to break in.
There are studies that show that guns are used to prevent far more crimes (or at least successful crimes) then guns are used to commit.
“In the UK that is not a fear so burglers are less hesitant to break in.”
But even Nanny State Britain can’t keep homeowners from having, say, a huge meat cleaver in their kitchen (to indulge in their love of cooking gourmet meals), or from being baseball aficionados who keep their treasured metal bat in their bedroom because they cherish it so much.
A not-totally-relevant thing to throw in here, too, is that I’m willing to bet that there are lots of people in the US who have guns in their homes, but many, many fewer people who would actually be fully equipped to use them. Before they moved to Florida, the people across the street used to be avid hunters with a whole chest of rifles. But if someone broke in to rob them, the burglars would have the element of surprise. In the Citizen’s Police Academy, the city’s firearms instructor talked about “The 21 Foot Rule” — if someone’s got a knife and is charging at you, they can be about 21 feet away and still get to you before the officer is able to draw, aim, and fire his gun. And that’s someone who has a loaded handgun on their hip, who’s been trained in drawing and firing rapidly. Now imagine the probably millions of people who keep a pistol or rifle unloaded in a safe, and who haven’t fired it in a few years.
I’m sure plenty of crimes have been stopped by gun owners, but I really don’t think that stops an awful lot of people looking for some cash to buy their next hit of heroin.
“There are studies that show that guns are used to prevent far more crimes (or at least successful crimes) then guns are used to commit.”
I totally agree that people should be allowed to own guns, and that they play a valuable role in preventing crimes. But if I went out, bought 30 guns, and gave ’em to everyone on my street, I really don’t think crime would be reduced.
This statistic brings up one of the things that would worry me if I were a gun owner. Suppose I owned a gun and was highly trained in its use. And someone breaks into my house. I pull my gun and order them to lie down on the ground while I call the cops. But they flip me the bird and keep loading my money and jewels into their bag. I can’t shoot them.
Sure, I don’t think a lot of people would do that. You’d be pretty insane to not do what the guy with a gun tells you to. (But I also think you’d be pretty insane to break into someone’s house.) But I think too many people tend to think of guns as some magical thing that stops crime and ensures their safety, just like too many people tend to think that installing anti-virus software guarantees their computer’s security.
In short: if I felt threatened, I’d probably feel (and be) safer with a gun. (Provided I got some training in its use…) But even if it was possible to increase the number of guns in society so that they were only being distributed to honest, nice, non-criminals, I really don’t think it would have much of a preventative effect. It’s giving too much credit to criminals to assume that they’re going to stop committing crimes because they might get hurt. They already might get hurt or killed, and they might get arrested, but they’re doing it.
My hairdresser has a gun. She brings it to work with her.