The leaders of our country have decided that America has an epidemic called violent crime. The legislative reaction to this crisis has been to enact laws that ban civilian ownership of certain types of firearms. These laws are nothing more than knee-jerk, reactionist legislation. They do nothing to deter violent crime. The laws only affect the people willing to obey them. Criminals, by their very nature, act outside the law. The only people disarmed by these laws are law-abiding citizens.
The Brady Law is based on the premise that one type of gun is more dangerous than another. This statement merely illustrates the proponents' ignorance about firearms. This law bans certain types of guns just for the way they appear. The law bans guns with what they call, "a menacing appearance"(NCPA). What do the authors consider menacing? Items like pistol grips and bayonet lugs. These items do nothing to make any gun more dangerous.
The Brady authors refer to any gun that they don't like as an assault rifle. The Department of Defense defines an assault rifle as a rifle capable of both automatic fire (many shots per trigger pull) and semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull) fire. The advocates of the Brady law say that this law is meant to target guns that are only used to shoot people. Any gun can be used to shoot people.
If these guns are so deadly and widespread, why don't we here about more people being killed with them? The fact is, that criminals posses very few of these guns. Criminals nearly always choose handguns to commit their crimes, because they are much easier to conceal. The two worst shooting sprees in U.S. history didn't involve assault rifles. James Huberty killed 20 people at a McDonald's Restaurant in San Ysidro, California, in 1984. Using a shotgun, a pistol, and a hunting rifle, George Hennard killed 22 people at a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in 1991. He used two ordinary pistols to kill his victims (NCPA).
The guns referred to as assault rifles by the Brady law are among some of the most expensive guns you can buy. Many of them cost more than a good used car. This extreme expense deters most law-abiding citizens from buying them. The authors of the Brady law claim that most of these assault rifles that are being used to terrorize our country are stolen from private owners, or purchased illegally.
The people who purchased these guns illegally or stole them already broke existing laws to get these guns. Gun control laws will do nothing to deter them from breaking more laws. Gun control laws also are supposed to help reduce violent crime by making it harder to get a handgun, the preferred weapon of the violent criminal. It doesn't work. Criminal justice experts believe this legislation has had little or no effect on criminals. Statistics indicate that these laws have not been effective. A recent survey of police chiefs found that 85% believed that the Brady Law had not prevented any criminal from obtaining a handgun (pdcrm). According to a 1991 Justice Department survey of convicts, most who used guns in violent crimes, got them illegally (pdcrm).
While these laws have been ignored by the criminals, law enforcement wishes they were able to ignore them. The National Association of Chiefs of Police estimated in late 1993 that it would take 10 million hours a year of police time to enforce these laws (NRA). The time the police will spend on background checks on prospective handgun buyers will be time taken away from catching criminals. This is ironic, when you consider that this same association was one of these laws biggest supporters when it was being debated on Capitol Hill. There is currently no federal funding for these laws. The implementation of these laws is the responsibility of the individual states. So now, money that was already sorely needed, for things like, education, public health care and highways, is being used to finance these ineffective laws.
Gun control advocates also contend that it is the very existence of these guns that cause crimes. Horse puckey!! Several very extensive statistical models have shown that there is no relationship between private gun ownership and violent crime. In one study, researchers could find no significant differences in the robbery rates between cities where guns were widely available and cities where they were not (NCPA). In the cities where it was harder to get a gun, criminals just used other weapons. This is true not only here in our country, but around the world as well. In Switzerland, up until last year, all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 were required to keep military issued rifles. These are assault rifles as defined by our Dept. of Defense. They are capable of automatic fire. The people were required to own theses guns by law. The Swiss enjoy one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Denmark and Finland also have high rates of gun ownership, yet they also have very low crime rates (NCPA).
An analysis of 19 different pieces of gun control legislation found that gun control laws don't do anything to reduce violent crime. These laws also don't do anything to reduce the use of guns in the commission of violent crimes. No Gun control legislation has ever been proven to prevent violent crime. Among the 15 states with the highest murder rates, 10 have very restrictive gun laws. 20% of the murders committed each year occur in four cities, New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington D.C. (NRA) . It is virtually impossible for a private citizen to legally own a gun in any of these cities. If Gun control makes the streets safer, then why are decent people in major cities arming themselves with substitute defense devices? In Washington D.C., some women are carrying oven cleaner in their purses for protection from criminals. Why? Because, not only are they not allowed to carry guns, but all forms of chemical defenses; mace, pepper spray, etc... , are illegal as well.
Even the police admit that the gun control laws aren't any good. The cops that have to enforce these laws say that they do little to deter violent crime. As a matter of fact, 77% of cops surveyed in a national poll said they did not support the Brady law. (SURVEY) Cops actually believe that an armed populace is a safer one. They feel that the private ownership of guns will increase safety. This is an overwhelming belief among beat cops. 85% of those officers surveyed, felt that gun ownership increased public safety (Survey).
These feelings are now being echoed by the chiefs of police in most areas. At first, these politically ambitious chiefs sided with the politically correct. They quickly reversed their stance on this issue. Why? They were pressured heavily by the people they were supposed to be representing. The individual police officers set them straight. Once these aspiring politicians were reacquainted with the realities of this issue, they were quickly discarded by the very politicians that had been parading them around for all to hear.
The threat these laws pose to public safety cannot be ignored. The only people that are actually affected by these laws are the honest people of this country. These are the people that own guns legally. They use them to protect themselves from violent criminals. Police and self-defense experts agree, that guns are the best way to protect oneself from violent crime. Studies show that rape and robbery victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to suffer injuries (Dept of Justice). The simple fact is the police cannot protect all of us at the same time.
There are about 250 million people in this country. There are only 500,000 police officers. This equates to one cop for every 3,360 people. How can one police officer protect that many people from violent crime? He can't. That issue is irrelevant to the authors of these laws. They live in very comfortable surroundings, in rich neighborhoods, patrolled by private security firms. I'd like to see Sarah Brady spend a night, unarmed, on the streets of south central Los Angeles!
Regular people use guns every day to defend themselves and their loved ones. In fact, criminals are more likely to be killed by their intended victims, than by the police. Americans defend themselves with guns an estimated 1,000,000 times each year (Dept of Justice). Most of the time, all they have to do is brandish their weapon. Sometimes they even fire a warning shot.
When the time for warnings has passed, citizens are very effective at defending themselves. Each year, legal gun owners kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense (Dept of Justice). This is three times the number killed by the police annually. Honest citizens also wound between 9,000 to 17,000 violent criminals annually (NRA).
Even our own criminal justice system depends on people to defend themselves. The Supreme Court says that local law enforcement officers have a duty to enforce the law, not protect people. The Supreme Court of New York said that victims of violent crime had no right to police protection. In 1926 a Federal Court of Appeals said," There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
While the states do not have to protect their citizens, they can enact legislation allowing people to protect themselves. Thirty-one states now have laws allowing people to carry concealed firearms. States with these laws have lower overall violent crime rates than states without carry laws. In a study by the University of Chicago, they found that:
Contrary to what the people that support the gun control Laws say, most people are in favor of laws allowing people to carry guns for personal protection. In a survey of registered voters, it was found that:
The reason these concealed weapons laws work is quite simple. Criminals don't want to risk being shot by their victims. The criminals would rather face an unarmed victim. This explains the high rates of violent crimes in our major cities. The criminals will continue to prey upon the people who can't defend themselves. The more restrictive the laws, the easier time criminals have victimizing the innocent.
Gun control laws ignore the real causes of violent crime. The reason is simple; there are more violent criminals on the streets today. Roughly 1/3 of all convicts are in prison. The rest are on parole or probation, free to commit more violent crimes. Imprisoned criminals serve only 1/3 of their sentences. We are releasing these threats to society long before their debt to society has been paid. Every day in America there are 14 murders, 48 rapes, and 578 robberies by convicted criminals on parole or early release from prison. The average career criminal commits more than 180 crimes a year (NCPA). We need to get serious about punishing these people.
It has been proven that stiffer penalties for crimes involving violence or guns do work. Making criminals serve the full duration of their punishment will help a great deal. People don't just wake up one day and decide to become violent criminals. They usually started their life of crime at a young age.
Qualified people need to intervene with these young people the first time they are arrested. These juveniles need to be punished according to the severity of their crimes. Let those who fell victim to the indiscretions of youth learn from their mistakes, yet give them the opportunity to recover from them. The juveniles who appear well on their way to becoming violent adult offenders, should be treated the same as their adult counterparts. Don't coddle them or hide them behind juvenile restrictions of sentencing. A 14-year-old assailant with a gun is just as dangerous as a 45-year-old.
Communities must band together to protect themselves from violent crime. Neighborhood watches and active resident participation have been proven to be very effective at reducing violent crimes in an area. As effective as these measures may be at reducing violent crime, nothing has been proven to be more effective than individual gun ownership.
As an example, consider the riots in Los Angeles in 1991. Fires raged everywhere, shops and stores were being looted all over town. Yet, in the middle of all this anarchy, some buildings remained untouched. Why? The answer is simple; their owners were armed and willing to defend their property. In some instances, these merchants had to shoot at looters. These storeowners said that police ignored their pleas for help that included dozens of 911 calls. Men with guns also defended Mann's Chinese Theater and nearby businesses through the first night of rioting. At midnight the following night, a squad of National Guardsmen arrived. After talking with the defenders, the commander decided his men could be of greater use elsewhere, and they left. This says a lot about the state of mind of these people. The merchants were doing exactly what our founding fathers intended. They were protecting themselves after local law enforcement had failed.
Guns are often referred to as equalizers. This is an excellent description. There is saying from the old west that epitomizes this sentiment. "God created all men, Colt made them equal." Gun control advocates often point to the old west when they relate the possibilities of a heavily armed populace.
This is a very good analogy. It also serves to illustrate the ignorance of gun control supporters. The old west was violent, but most was a result of clashes with hostile Indians, bandits, or foreign nations (Mexico). There was not a great deal of ordinary crime. The reason was simple, everyone was armed, and would-be criminals didn't dare molest them. Hollywood's depiction of the old west is completely inaccurate. The west was actually quite safe. The murder rates in Boston, New York, and Baltimore were much higher than those western towns made so famous in legends. This illustrates, even then, most of the social predators in our society confined their activities to areas where guns were not readily available.
The facts are obvious, the examples numerous. Rather than cause crime, gun ownership actually prevents it. The gun control laws have been statistically proven to be ineffective at preventing violent crime. They may actually cause violent crime rates to increase. This legislation was enacted by ignorant individuals who were unable or unwilling to address the real causes of violent crime. These laws are being touted as the legislative snake oil cure all for Americas' problems with violent crime. Just as the miracle tonics of the carpetbaggers often did more harm than good, these dubious concoctions of legislative mumbo-jumbo can only bring about further suffering. Until we can get some common sense legislation passed, the violence in our streets will continue to escalate.