The Washington, D.C. sniper has claimed a ninth victim and
Americans stand transfixed to the story like deer in headlights,
paralyzed by the fear that they can fall victim to a similar
crime.
Yet as the media circus over-dramatizes these sincerely tragic
events, we must not get caught up in the mass hysteria and support
draconian gun control laws. We must remain objective to the facts
of gun ownership.
The first fact we must keep in mind is that no amount of gun
control legislation, including a universal ban on all gun ownership
(repealing the Second Amendment), would put a stop to the
sniper’s crimes. Drugs are illegal but people seem to have no
difficulty acquiring them. Guns are the same way. The underground
market for illegal guns is already strong as evidenced by constant
gang violence and drive-by shootings in the inner cities. Likewise,
violent crime cannot be stopped with gun control.
Since banning firearms in England, the crime rates have
skyrocketed as opposed to the relatively static rates in the United
States. Also, big cities in states such as Texas and Georgia, where
there is very little gun control, have incredibly miniscule rates
of crime compared to Los Angeles and New York City, both of which
have stringent gun control.
California, New York and England have completely forgotten the
lessons learned from 40 years of the Cold War. When both the good
guys and the bad guys are armed, and neither knows the extent to
which the other has an advantage, mutually assured destruction is
inevitable.
If I have a way to fight back, you can attack me, but damn if
I’m not going to do my best to defend myself, even if it
means taking you down. As a result, not one bomb, nuclear or
otherwise, exploded during forty years of intense conflict.
The same logic applies to the gun control debate. Because such a
large black market exists for firearms, the general public has no
way of knowing who is going to use a gun for a crime. As a result,
the single best deterrent for violent crime is to place the
criminal at the same disadvantage. Presumably, a criminal cares
about his own life (else he would waste away instead of risking
jail), and would therefore be loathe to attack someone if there was
a high probability of that person being armed.
A common objection to my argument for broad gun ownership is the
worry that more kids will accidentally die due to misfire. After
all, the media constantly feeds us imagery of children whose lives
were tragically cut short by playing with firearms. But one must
keep in mind that the media’s job is not to inform, but to
titillate. They know that stories of death sell papers and make
ratings. Stories of criminals who run away from a potential robbery
or assault because their would-be victim had a firearm are not
exciting enough to make good news. Only the victims of crime get
coverage. If no crime has occurred because a citizen threatens a
criminal with a gun, there is nothing to report to the police.
Statistics taken from scientific surveys and analyzed by
impartial scientists have yielded an amazing occurrence that
contradicts the media’s selective reporting. There are
roughly 2,500 accidental gun deaths each year in the United States
as opposed to 2.5 million occurrences where a gun is used for
defensive purposes to prevent a crime. This means that if even one-
tenth of a percent of the deterred crimes would have been fatal,
lack of gun control would still save as many lives as are lost
through accidental death with a gun (www.gunsandcrime.org and
“More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott).
The logic and proof is incontrovertible. We must not allow an
insane criminal to frighten us into allowing the government to take
away our rights, as we did with the Patriot Act. Crazy or evil
people will always kill others. Just because a student at UC Santa
Barbara ran over a bunch of Isla Vista residents is no reason to
put restrictions on cars. Let’s remain rational and give
people the power they need to protect themselves, instead of
forcing them to stand like deer in headlights.