By David Robb ——Bio and Archives--June 21, 2023
Guns-Crime-Terror-Security | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
We can't seem to escape it. Every time we open a paper or click on the news there is some new story—“Family of four found dead after home invasion. Police looking for culprits.", "Woman's mutilated body found after brutal rape/murder.", "Shopkeeper stabbed to death during midday robbery.". The violence crosses all lines—gender, race, religion, social class, urban, rural, political orientation—almost everyone is at risk.
What is to be done? Have we become a society where we just have to accept that we might become victims at any time? Is the possibility of violent injury or death simply a fact of modern life?
I said almost everyone is at risk. Is there a group of people who are less vulnerable? A group who can effectively defend themselves, or even deter such violence?
Although they are reluctant to admit it, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has acknowledged that there is one group of people who has managed to successfully defend themselves, or even deter would-be attacks without violence between 1.5M and 3M times a year in the US. That works out to 4,000 to 8,000 times each day when a life has been saved, a rape averted, a robbery stopped, and any number of other violent threats deterred.
How do they do it? Who are these people? Do they have special powers? Magic wands?
Well... sort of. For the most part, these are ordinary folk just like you and me, from all walks of life. What they have in common is a sort of special power, although not a magic wand. What they have is a tool that gives them the ability to defend themselves. Thanks to a provision of our Constitution, they are armed with both a weapon and the knowledge to use it. In the words of the Constitution, they are "well regulated".
Now we have some highly vocal groups of people, some well intentioned, some not so, who would deprive these people of those special powers. Some fear the tools would be misused, some resent the ability of people to defend themselves. Some think only officials should have such tools. A small group realizes that if such tools are prohibited to the people, those people will be helpless in the face of overwhelming government power.
Of course, I am writing of firearms, commonly called "guns" and of the current interest in gun control laws. I am not opposed to common sense gun laws, although I doubt that what is common sense to me is the same as what many control advocates would consider common sense. I would point out that there are already a wide range of common sense laws on the books, most of which are ignored.
There are laws that mandate harsher punishments for crimes where guns are used in their commission. There are other laws that restrict gun ownership to adults. There are laws regarding careless handling of firearms. When enforced, all of these laws have been demonstrated to greatly reduce violent crime, and even other sorts of crime. So why don't we enforce these? Why do we need new ones?
One problem lies with the justice system. Prosecutors are often rewarded on the number of convictions they secure, with little consideration given to the nature of the crime or how those convictions are obtained. When faced with a crime where a gun was used, the prosecutor has a choice in how to pursue a conviction.
Certain crimes such as murder or armed robbery often require a jury trial. Such trials are expensive, time consuming, and do not always lead to a conviction. For a prosecutor, those sort of crimes, especially if a conviction is not certain, do not help their careers. It is often easier to secure a conviction on a plea deal for a gun possession crime. Such convictions are much easier to obtain, and carry much smaller sentences for the criminal.
Support Canada Free Press
This leads to a sort of "catch and release" process whereby the criminal can be released earlier, likely to commit more crimes which provide more opportunities for prosecutors to secure more convictions. In Minnesota, they call this a twofer —twice the benefit for less work.
A second reason the laws are seldom enforced is that by removing criminals and not guns, the objectives of those who wish a disarmed populace are not served. They would much rather promote fear and ignorance, both of which lead to a populace much easier to control, than to a free people comprised of independent individuals able to defend themselves.
Many of the proposed "gun laws" seek to eliminate guns entirely from the population, leaving them only in government and military hands. They rely on the false logic that says if there were no more civilian guns, then there would be no more violence.
The argument neglects to recognize that most violent crimes are committed without use of guns. According to FBI statistics, more people are killed by use of hands than by rifles. There is even a Biblical report of the first murder being done with a rock.
Many of these proposals for removing civilian guns are put forth by various government actors—a somewhat hypocritical position considering that at the same time they seek to disarm the people, they are greatly increasing the arms in government hands. Why does the Department of Education need hundreds of handguns and scary "weapons of war" AR15 platform rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition. Are they contemplating a new approach to school discipline?
Likewise, why should the State Department be acquiring a M134D multi-barrel electric Gatling gun capable of firing several thousands of rounds per minute. Is this a real politic approach to diplomacy?
Of course, many of us are aware of the 87,000 new armed IRS agents soon to be unleashed on us. This makes the IRS even more reminiscent of the Mafia and their collection tactics. Pay up or we shoot you!
It would seem that many of the proposed new gun laws are being put forth for symbolic reasons to engage in "virtue theatre" to please certain constituencies, with no real expectation that they will actually become laws. Such virtue signalling is an abuse of the legislative system for personal benefit and should not be supported.
Aside from the symbolic and hypocritical nature of many of the proposals, there are simply the practical issues of trying to confiscate the weapons of our citizens. There are substantially more guns in private hands than there are citizens, and far more ammunition available for them. Trying to ban guns to prevent murder is like banning penises to prevent rape. Although there are a number of folks who would be in favor of both bans, as a practical matter, while both objects can be misused, both also have numerous legitimate uses, including recreational. A large majority of their owners would strongly object to any attempts to confiscate same.
Not all laws are the same
The question now arises, which laws do we really need? The title of this article suggests that some laws might be necessary, but why?
We observed that the laws most effective in reducing crime involved greater penalties for crimes where guns were involved in their commission. We also saw that prosecutors could use lax gun laws to their advantage with no positive effect on crime. From the CDC information, we determine that armed citizens who can defend themselves greatly reduce crime rates. Putting all that together, we can propose some effective gun laws that actually reduce crime and protect citizens.
First, make it difficult for prosecutors to offer plea deals when a gun is used in commission of a crime. Enforce enhanced penalty laws where they exist, and enact new ones where needed.
In jurisdictions where they are lacking, introduce laws supportive of defensive use of guns—-“stand your ground", "castle doctrine" and other similar laws are appropriate, and universal Constitutional carry laws would help greatly. "Must issue" laws for concealed weapons should exist for every State.
So called "Red Flag" laws should have very strict limits on their application and require significant proof of risk before they can be applied.
History shows that the most mannerly periods, the most courteous periods have been those where a large fraction of the population was armed. Guns are great equalizers that put small women on equal footing with large males, the elderly equivalent to strong youths, and the populace in general able to force respect from a government that would encroach on their freedoms.
The laws we want, not the ones they want
Yes, we really really need gun laws, but only good ones that respect the right of individual citizens to defend themselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Clearly, those who favor gun confiscation also favor more rapes, more deadly assaults, more home invasions, more holdups, carjackings, and muggings, more armed robberies, and yes, even more mass murders.
They may not realize the real consequences of their misguided intentions, but we have all heard of the famous road that is paved with good intentions. We need to help them understand the consequences of their proposals. Guns are not the problem. Their proposals are.
View Comments
David Robb is a practicing scientist and CTO of a small firm developing new security technologies for detection of drugs and other contraband. Dave has published extensively in TheBlueStateConservative, and occasionally in American Thinker.