Eugene Volokh points to an exhaustive study by the National Academy of Sciences that find no evidence that gun control correlates to lower levels of crime. As noted anti-gun control advocate John Lott points out:
Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn’t identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
James Q. Wilson, one of the most respected social scientists of our time even went so far as to write a dissenting reporting noting that the study indicated that shall-issue laws actually reduce crime. The fact is that if you’re willing to commit a murder or robbery with a gun, you can get a gun. No law is going to prevent that. Criminals have easy access to weapons and they don’t care about registrations or permits. The only way to make sure that crime stays low is to reduce the chances that a crime will be successfu. If a criminal thinks that the young woman walking through that parking lot at night might have a gun and know how to use it, he’s going to be less likely to harm her. If he’s dumb enough to do so, the chances of him getting away to commit another crime drops precipitously.
The NAS report only confirms what common sense tell us — a society that is armed is a society in which criminals take a much larger risk. A supine and disarmed populace makes for a larger groups of targets. Disarming America benefits only the criminals who already have access to all the weapons they need.
If I’m a junkie desperate for a fix and following either a female college student or an old lady alone on the sidewalk in the dead of night, I’m very unlikely to worry about the potential of her packing a 357 Magnum in her purse. The odds of her wielding a firearm and being able to effectively use it in the midst of an intense struggle are so low that your average thug wouldn’t hesitate for a moment in mugging her or raping her when the opportunity arose. There’s a reason why we rarely if ever hear of Dirty Harriets pumping lead into the guts of their attackers. It just doesn’t happen with any regularity.
The kinds of random thugs who engage in high-risk crimes like muggings and rape are usually motivated by the desperate need for drug money or unbridled libido. In general, they’re not likely to be the kind who carefully measure their decisions based on possible consequences. The “deterrant” argument here works about well as it does with the death penalty….in other words, barely at all.
I’m generally not a fan of gun control laws on the basis of personal freedom, but I’m not willing to drink the purple Kool-Aid so far as to buy into arguments of “deterrance” merely as a way to promote the sale of firearms. Pro-gun zealots seem to be willing to use whatever means necessary to advance their political agenda even if it’s argument as flimsy as the one you espouse.
Mark,
If what you say were true and the threat of equal force would not be a deterrent then why are we not seeing the police attacked and robbed. They frequent bad neighborhoods. Even if they are not carrying much money, the weapons they carry have value and can be pawned. Jay Reding has a valid point that any anti-gun liberal must admit: gun control is not working – evidently from his post not even the least bit. Maybe we should all start packing. Of course, that will also increase what I’ve read is the majority of shooting victims: family member or friend by accident.
“If what you say were true and the threat of equal force would not be a deterrant then why are we not seeing the police attacked and robbed?”
Because the threat of equal force is undeniable with a police officer who everybody knows to carry a firearm on their belt, not to mention having extensive professional training on how to use that firearm. The likelihood of grannies and college girls having Glock 9’s in their purses is very small, and the likelihood that they’ll be able to successfully use their gun in the midst of an armed mugging is even smaller.
The threat of equal force theory is an intriguing one in principle, but in order for it to have any real world significance in stopping muggers and rapists, a solid majority of people from every age, gender and racial demographic would have to be packing…and would have to be equally adept at handling firearms. Considering that half the population does not own a gun and has no intention of doing so (and considering that most of the half who don’t carry guns live in the places of the country where muggings and rapes are most common), this hypothetical seems unlikely to ever be realized.
You’re probably correct that gun control isn’t working. I’ve never been a fan of the prohibitionary mindset that government laws can render obsolete supply-and-demand laws, so the premise that only the criminals will have guns if we try to take guns away from criminals is likely accurate. In fact, I’ve long maintained that if we roll back some of the prohibitions currently in place (drugs, prostitution), many of the primary instigations for existing gun crimes would fade into oblivion along with the criminal underworld created by the prohibitions. Nonetheless, I am not a supporter of “conceal and carry” laws. They can only be successful if far more people end up carrying guns than are currently willing to do, and as you say, with more people possessing firearms there will an increased incidence of passion shootings, particularly those involving domestic squabbles.
I can’t see anything positive coming out a culture with more guns….unless of course you happen to be a gun manufacturer, as is all too often the case among the biggest cheerleaders of expanding access and availability of guns.
I’m a liberal, but I’m not particularily anti-gun. I’m from rinky-dink Wisconsin where there are a lot of guns but hardly any shootings. When guns are used properly and people are trained in their use, it doesn’t seem to be much of a problem.
Here’s the thing about rape. A gun might not help me because it would be buried in my purse or something. What would help is knowing Kung Fu. We should be teaching all little girls Kung Fu so that when they get jumped in a parking lot they can kill him with their bare hands.
Erica, excellent point. Karate lessons would be a better bet for personal security than a gun buried in a girl’s purse.