The National Academy of Sciences reviewed hundreds of studies and could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder. After Washington’s firearm ban in 1976, its crime rate had increased 132 percent despite the overall decrease in crime rate in the United States. The United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world after the 1997 shooting in Dunblane, England, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Since this law was passed, gun-related crime has nearly doubled. These are just two of the hundreds of cases that support the fact that gun violence has increased in all cases where guns have been banned.
In all states where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon, there is no more violent crime or murder. In fact, in Kennesaw, Georgia, where they passed a law requiring all households to carry a gun, there was a decrease in crime. The same results hold true for Switzerland, where they have virtually no gun crime, and where all people who have served the militia (basically all men over 18) are required to keep their gun in their household.
So why does the establishment of gun control laws cause an increase in crime rate? Criminals do not obey these gun control laws, and law-abiding citizens do. By making guns illegal, innocent civilians become an easier less risky target, thus increasing the amount of criminal acts done to them. When both parties have guns, criminals are much more hesitant to commit these acts as the risk factor increases massively.
This effect of gun control is not the reason why the right to bare arms is a constitutional right. As Thomas Jefferson once stated, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Although this may be the strongest reason for this right, it is not the only reason why it exists.
Hence, for the first time in my life, I will agree with Gandhi in that we should have the right to bare arms.
3 comments:
Your arguments and statements about the decreased crime rates etc. BECAUSE of people being allowed to bear arms is something I agree with. It is the same principle as making all drugs legal--there would be less crime because people would not to terrible things to get it/run it/etc., and there would be less harm caused because it could possibly be government controlled and given in controlled amounts that were PURE, just like pharmaceutical drugs. Off topic, but it's basically the same principle. If you allow the people to have it/do it, there is less of a chance of it causing harm to other or to oneself.
--Erica
PS: I know that was not very eloquently written, but what do you want?! I've been sleeping all day and I'm groggy! haha.
I am a Minnesota resident, where a conceal-and-carry law has been passed. With the right certification, background check, etc., citizens have the right to conceal a weapon to use in cases of self-defense. In establishments like bars, restaurants, and move theaters, signs are posted to disallow concealed weapons, should the establishment elect to ban them.
I have had no problem with the law being enacted, despite the huge controversy that arose in the newspaper and on local TV stations during the bills discussion. I have not had the opportunity to look at Minnesota gun crime rates since its enactment, but I have certainly felt no less safe than I did prior to the bill's signing.
Does this study mention anything about Finland where most people also have guns? There's been a lot of gun-related massacres happening there. Why would Finland be an exception to the trend that you suggest?
Do you have any links to these studies that you mention so we can verify what you say?
Was the rise in Washington's crime after the ban due to gun-related crime or was it other types of crime? We need to know if these drops in crime are due to correlation or causation.
In the case of Switzerland, it's also one of the richest and most peaceful countries in the world (they always pick the neutral side in conflicts), so of course crime is low there. It's also the home of the Red Cross, the Geneva office for the United Nations, and it's a predominately Christian country. There's just a national mindset that opposes the use of weapons for violent means - a much better prevention against violence than getting more guns out there. It is not so much the presence of the guns that matters as much as the mentality of the people that does. And what better way to change the mentality, than to start by eliminating the possession of guns by civilians. Once the mentality changes, you can introduce guns again if you want without worrying that they'll be misused.
The infamous political leaders in the photograph above had ill-intended government policies as a whole and just because gun-control happened to be part of it doesn't mean that gun-control was the cause of the tragedies that occurred under those leaders' reign. Otherwise we could link Charlie Chaplin to Hitler since they had the same toothbrush moustache - you need to figure out if it's coincidence, correlation or causation.
In my post on this same topic (http://vagrantphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/02/hoplophobia-or-hope-gun-laws.html), I mention people who advocate for open-carry of guns in public. I would never feel safe around such lunatics and would argue they're impeding on my right to be free from the threat of harm. Either I'm just a wimp or I don't trust the maturity and decision-making processes of these people.
Of course that gets into the idea of whether the potentiality of harm is as dangerous as the harm itself. Guns are used as killing tools (human or animal) and as a threat to deter people. Their primary purpose is to either harm or threaten harm. Kitchen knives, although they too can kill, have a primary purpose of cutting food. Pool balls are for playing pool, but you could still crush someone's temples in with them. The point is in how far removed the threat of harm is. With a gun, the line between safety and treat is very thin. Just as there are categories of weapons, the deadliness of the tool is important, as is commonly brought up in ethical debates over the use of nuclear weapons. Wouldn't everyone just be safer without all these weapons?
This can be linked to your whole criticism of religion. As you say in your first post: that religion is a cause of many atrocious acts, isn't it true that guns too are a cause of many atrocious acts. Yet you advocate that religion should be removed because of these acts, while you think guns should be kept? Is it possible that people have used religion as a tool to commit these atrocious acts, but in fact it's not religion's fault at all, but the fault of the people who claim to be religious? Of course if you think the primary purpose of religion is to kill, then I would understand your dislike of it. However religion is primarily a guide to the living of life, not to the taking it away - you have to look at the whole picture.
Post a Comment