L.A. Liberty

Tragedy Shouldn’t Make Policy

In a post this morning, Brian Doherty offers sober perspective:

There is no consistent association between gun crimes and easy access to guns or the right to carry. [Mass shootings] are so bizarre and rare that there is no sense in trying to craft laws aimed at preventing them. [Of all homicides in the U.S., those with five or more victims account for 0.1%.] Despite constantly expanding gun ownership—the number of new firearms entering American possession averages around 4 million a year—and expanded rights to legally carry weapons, the last two decades have seen a 41 percent decline in violent crime rates. Since the 2004 expiration of the “assault weapon” ban, murder rates are down 15 percent. …

Prohibition has never succeeded in eradicating that which was prohibited. The more difficult it is for peaceful, law-abiding individuals to acquire a good, the more the supply of that good falls into the hands of criminals. And someone who is willing to murder is not afraid of committing the much less grievous crime of acquiring an illegal firearm.

What happened in Colorado is horrific. A deranged individual left ~~twelve~~ thirteen dead and even more injured - including a three-month-old - after opening fire in a crowded theater. Even one innocent life taken away at the hands of evil is too many, much less thirteen. This noxious atrocity exposes the profoundly dark recesses that are sometimes found in the human mind, and it makes us conscious of the uncertain nature of all our lives. I am deeply saddened by the mindlessness and, as a father, part of me wants to never let my little girls leave my side. But while it’s easy to react to tragedies with emotion, I know that this is an untenable solution - just as the current advocating for greater gun control is not the answer.

The way to mitigate such senseless violence is not to tip the scales in favor of criminals by disarming their victims.

Indeed, the vast majority of people who own guns not only use them safely, but often use them to protect innocent life. Just a few days ago, a 71-year-old man with a small handgun was able to shoot two armed thugs (one with a bat, the other with a gun) who were attempting to rob the many patrons of an internet cafe. When such a heroic thing happens, are the hails of how concealed ownership saved lives anywhere as vociferous as the cries for banning guns when tragedy strikes?

And make no mistake, those opposed to guns have already seized on this tragic “opportunity” to push their political agenda. But agitating against gun-ownership does not achieve its intended aim of eliminating guns and weakening criminals. In fact, the opposite is true - it gives them an edge.

As I’ve said previously, “Guns are equalizers. No longer can someone be attacked simply because he or she is smaller or weaker. A small elderly woman with a gun can take down an assailant of any size. And if the assailant has a gun, no rape whistle or pepper spray or even knife could equal the playing field like a firearm.

“When statist impulses are used to disarm the sane and peaceful, only the insane and violent will be armed - and fewer will be safe.”

Posted July 20, 2012 at 10:51am in ∆ 2nd Amendment libertarian politics gun control | comments || home