Townhall | John Stossel | Feb. 27, 2008
Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims’, success. So criminals don’t attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.
Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: “Dial 911 and Die.” If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.
How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?
[…]
It’s all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.
The editorial board wants “the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks — and everywhere else, it seems — to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth.”
As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between “carefully controlling guns” and “arming everyone to the teeth.” But no one favors “arming everyone to the teeth” (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.
As for the first option, “carefully controlling guns,” how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.
While they search for — excuse me — their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.
That’s because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.
. . . more
“No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.”
True, but I would suggest the following:
a) proof of training or certification (at least once per lifetime) with the purchase of a handgun – I’ve never had one so I’d probably end up blowing my head off w/o it
b) waiting periods of 48 hours
c) background checks – no sales to those with any recent conviction of a violent crime within the last 5 years
d) Tougher sentencing for parents whose children end up dead due to household firearm mishaps where there was obviously a lack of proper consideration for keeping the firearm hidden or secure
Yes, people should be able to protect themselves and even keep a firearm in their vehicle or … pocket I guess. I also don’t believe in government restrictions for everything (I think the age of consumption should be lowered to 18). However, it is reasonable to place some restrictions on the possession of firearms: making things difficult does deter some crime just as locked doors and security systems do deter some from theft.
We currently have a huge number of legal restrictions on the sale and posession of firearms. For starters, it is against federal and state law for a felon to posess a firearm. Period.
The problem is that criminals don’t obey gun laws, just as they don’t obey other laws. They don’t obey laws intended to protect people from robbery, rape, assault, and murder. They don’t obey laws intended to protect children from being sold drugs. That’s why we call them criminals.
Anyone advocating more gun laws should really ask whether it is credible that the new laws will prevent crime. Let’s see — someone plans to commit robbery, which is aginst the law. They also plan to use a gun in the crime — also against the law. Will even more laws help? I doubt it.
According to the World Almanac, there were 0.2 accidental deaths due to firearms per 100,000 US population in 2005. In the same year, there were 15.5 due to motor vehicles, 6.0 due to falls, 7.1 due to accidental poisoning, and 1.2 due to drowning. There were 38.1 due to all accidental causes. The firearms deaths were about a half a percent of the total. (I don’t have the figures specifically for children, but I’ve seen them in the past. They are similar to these.)
To anyone who advocates more laws to prevent gun accidents, I ask: what new laws do you advocate to prevent the other fatal accidents — the ones that are 190 times more frequent. (Or are those deaths somehow less important and therefore less deserving of special laws?)
I’m not a lawyer, but negligence is a legal concept that seems to deal well enough with accidents that are, well, negligent. I’d say the general legal theory of negligence is as good for negligent firearms accidents as it is for other negligent accidents — the ones that are so much more prevalent.
Augie, we already have laws that punish people for what they might do: you can lose your license for multiple OVI incidents, even if you’ve hit no person or property. People have been incarcerated for drugs they were going to buy, for murders they planned to commit and for showing intent of having sexual relations with a minor (even if nothing actually occurred). Some people cannot even live where they wish to if they have a history of sexual crimes, even if they’ve already served their sentence.
I’m not certain how much more stringent the laws can get. True, these are not all instances of negligence, but it’s clear that they law extends very far when it’s punishing people for things they only intended to do yet haven’t done, would you not agree?
Again, I support the right of Americans to carry arms on their persons or in their vehicles. Given the list above, however, I don’t see how simple restrictions on who is permitted to carry a gun legally or waiting periods are necessarily intrusive or unconstitutional. If you disagree, I’d be happy to hear why.
JamesK, we already have clear restrictions on who is permitted to carry a gun legally. We already have waiting periods. We already have lists of offenses which disqualify a person — by force of law — from handling a gun, much less owning one.
I’m not sure we disagree about the need for such restrictions. However, you appear to want more of them. I’m skeptical that more of them would do any good.
As for safety … it’s important to recognize that the death rate from car accidents is about 75 times greater than from gun accidents. If you’re concerned about safety, your concern would be 75 times as effective applied to new auto safety laws than to new gun safety laws. By the way, as I’ve said before, I am concerned about gun safety. That’s why I’ve been volunteering my time for years to teach gun safety classes.