« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Guns don't kill people. People kill people!
The rhetoric I've heard during the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision to overturn the DC ban on handguns makes me feel like discussing the topic of gun control. I don't mean to be insensitive to anyone's feeling on the matter but I felt like this title would get a pretty heated discussion rolling...
Guns don't kill people. People kill people!
Sometimes they use guns, sometimes they use knives, sometimes they use poison, sometimes they use bare hands, sometimes they use explosives, sometimes they use sticks and stones, sometimes they push others over cliffs, sometimes they use water to drown them, and a whole host of other ways.
The bottom line is if the goal is reducing violent crime you need to look at the root causes of that crime and address them, not just the means to carry out the crime.
why?
Because if you keep taking away various means to carry out the crime but the reason for the crime existing in the first place still exists, then those carrying out the crime will simply find another way to do so.
Perfect example: the DC ban on handguns was NOT effective at its stated goal of reducing violent crime which used guns.
During the time period that the ban was in effect the District consistently ranked amongst the top areas in the country for incidents of violent gun related crime and murder. Also during most of that time the rate was higher than it was before the ban. This is particularly interesting because the District is surrounded by counties from two states (MD and VA) which had much lower rates of gun crime despite having significantly less restrictive gun control laws.
The reason is oft-noted by gun control critics and very valid regardless of where it comes from: by definition, criminals don't obey the law!
This means that the very population the ban is targeting is the exact population least likely to be effected by the ban. If someone was interested in purchasing a gun and then realized or learned the gun they intended to purchase is illegal or banned and as a result they didn't purchase it that person is very likely not someone who is going to be committing a violent crime with a gun. People who intend to use a gun in a criminal manner are going to do so whether it's illegal or not. Making the gun itself illegal is pointless and ineffective.
Determining and targeting the actual causes of violent crime including violent crime which uses guns is a much tougher task but likely to produce much better results than simply banning guns.
I'm sure there are some vastly differing opinions on the topic. I would love to have a rational and non-emotionally charged discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of gun control laws. Even more importantly the actual causes of violent crime and how to prevent it in the first place! Let me know what you think!
Comments (36)
Brilliant! Can you explain what law is for then? Criminals don't obey it and the rest doesn't need it, so it's just a complete waste of effort, right?
June 27, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree that all laws are pointless because people will do whatever they want to anyways and the government has no power.
June 27, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
honestly it seems to be so that lawyers can bill hours arguing about it!
but more to the point, the law is there to implement societal norms of behavior and punish those who break it.
You're ignoring the context of that statement. it's discussing a BAN on guns not just a LAW regulating their use. there is a difference, can you see it?
a ban (or prohibition, remember that concept?) IS a waste of effort. to achieve the desired effect it's much more useful to simply have a law regulating use and access. Kinda like how a prohibition on alcohol didn't stop it's use and exacerbated many of the worst social ills associated with it while laws regulating availability and requirements for access to it, coupled with a widespread education campaign about it's safe and responsible use were much more effective. also note that despite such an effort there are STILL many people who abuse it to their own and others safety. the point being that you can't legislate away human nature.
June 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, during prohibition, the crime rates, especially domestic violence fell across the board - robberies, burglaries, domestic murders all fell. Why? Because the underlying factor of most crimes is alcohol.
June 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see the numbers backing that claim. I doubt that alcohol is the cause of most crime. Whatever fuels the USE of alcohol in the first place is probably more of a cause. Ditto for drugs and guns. If someone is drowning their sorrows in a bottle is the bottle to blame or the sorrows?
June 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would recommend "Prohibition, Alcohol and Murder" Jensen, Gary, Homicide Studies, 2000, 4: 18-36 or "Alcohol Consumption during Prohibition" by Miron and Zweibel who point out that even in the height of prohibition the drinking levels reached around 60 - 70% of pre-prohibition levels. Of course the only way to measure that is to compare arrests for drunkenness before prohibition with those after prohibition.
Crime statistics nationally weren't collected until the 30s, so the statistics are based on a sampling ofarrest records of police depts across the nation. As I said, crimes such as robberies, burglaries and domestic crimes fell across the board. Was the prohibition good in the long term? Obviously no.
As to alcohol and crime, according to the U.S. Bureau of Statistics, in 1 out 5 violent victimizations the perpetrator was perceived as having used alcohol. Nationwide, over one million crimes were reported in 2002, where alcohol was a major factor in the crime.
June 27, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Prohibitionists hoped that the Volstead Act would decrease drunkenness in America and thereby decrease the crime rate, especially in large cities. Although towards the beginning of Prohibition this purpose seemed to be fulfilled, the crime rate soon skyrocketed to nearly twice that of the pre-prohibition period. In large cities the homicide went from 5.6 (per 100,000 population) in the pre-prohibition period, to nearly 10 (per 100,000 population) during prohibition, nearly a 78 percent increase. Serious crimes, such as homicides, assault, and battery, increased nearly 13 percent, while other crimes involving victims increased 9 percent. Many supporters of prohibition argued that the crime rate decreased. This is true if one is examining only minor crimes, such as swearing, mischief, and vagrancy, which did in fact decrease due to prohibition. The major crimes, however, such as homicides, and burglaries, increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. In addition, the number of federal convicts over the course of the prohibition period increased 561 percent. The crime rate increased because “prohibition destroyed legal jobs, created black-market violence, diverted resources from enforcement of other laws, and increased prices people had to pay for prohibited goods”
From: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/troy/4399/
June 27, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that some guns are used for hunting. But there are a lot of guns that are only used to kill people. Knives are used for cutting things. Cars, which kill so many people, are used for driving. It is not possible to outlaw cliffs, stones, sticks, water or people's hands. There are a lot of guns that are simply used to kill. Whether in defense, or offense, or crime or accidents. Their simple purpose is only to kill people. The way I see it is, the more guns, the more dead people. The less guns, the less dead people. People may kill people but it is just so damn easier with a gun. People act impulsively... and guns make it easier that these acts result in dead people.
June 27, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
I believe in the right to 'bear arms'. However, hunters do not need automatic weapons - neither do proponents of target shooting competition.
Guns easily converted to automatic assault weapons should be banned: Deaths and injuries suffered in drive by shootings would be greatly reduced (really tough to do a 'drive by' with a knife - however maybe bows and arrows could work, or slingshots).
Better enforcement of existing gun laws - higher $$$ fines for those who violate current laws.
i.e. We need better gun control laws. (No permit/license/record of sale needed to buy at gun shows and from private individuals is ludicrous.)
Perhaps those who use guns for violent crimes should have their trigger fingers cut off!
June 27, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more. military style automatics have no place in civilian hands. rifles, shotguns and pistols should suffice for most normal hunting, target practice and self defense purposes. Can't see the need for an AK-47 anywhere in there!
June 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, not disagreeing with your main point, but just to be a stickler for accuracy...
Any of those guns that don't have "other" purposes may, in fact, be used to injure rather than to kill.
June 27, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's the crux of the issue. 'the more guns, the more dead people.' how do you propose to get rid of them? in order to be effective it has to be an all or nothing thing, right? If some have them and some don't aren't the ones without simply at the whim of those with? (boy, that statement can be extrapolated out a bit, huh?!)
June 27, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: How come the people who want guns to be legal don't also want drugs to be legal? Also, nuclear weapons by the way. You know, Iran is going to build nuclear weapons whether we want them to or not. And it's not the nuclear weapon that is the problem, it's the guy who pushes the button.
June 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This one isn't. The "War on Drugs" has not been effective at its stated goal. Drugs are more widely available now than they were when the "War" started. Keeping something illegal only increases the likelihood of an illegal market to provide it existing and increasing the demand for it. Education and prevention will give you significantly more bang for the buck.
June 27, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
your point about nukes is exactly the same as the point about guns. we're not worried that france is gonna nuke us but the idea of iran having nukes causes a lot of concern. it's not that france CAN"T do so it's just that their behavior and history towards us doesn't suggest violent hostile intent. iran has (through its proxies) killed many of our troops. it has violently captured and held our fellow citizens hostage. we wouldn't trust them with such a dangerous weapon. this is the same for guns: criminals or mentally unstable people or those with a history of violent behavior SHOULD NOT have access to guns. neither should minors unless supervised by a properly trained and licensed adult. but everyone else certainly should IF they want to. if they don't then that's their choice but they shouldn't be able to make that choice for those that do want to have guns.
June 27, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where we differ on this issue. I feel that if we're gonna be consistent on gun laws we have to be consistent with it on a world wide scale.
Yes, absolutely it is in our best interests as a country to make sure that Iran doesn't have Nukes. BUT, looking at it from the side of the Iranians it would appear that the only way to protect yourself and your own interests on the world scale is to have equal or greater firepower than those who would do harm to them. Kim Jong Il WAS a part of the "Axis of Evil" why haven't we invaded them? Because they actually have weapons of mass destruction and can do harm to us. Iraq bluffed but, truly, we knew they didn't have them.
Think about it logically, would you attack a "crazy nation" that would have the ability to strike back with massively destructive capability, NO. That's why the cold war remained cold.
As an American citizen I hope like hell that Iran doesn't obtain the power of being a nuclear force. But if I were an Iranian and I saw the destruction that America laid upon Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd be praying to Allah 12 times a day that we had a big ole jar of plutonium.
June 27, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure where the disagreement is. I think it is certainly the prudent and logical course of action for iran to pursue a nuclear weapon. For the reasons you mentioned (NK example) but also for the simple fact that their two sworn enemies (Israel and US) are both nuclear powers. Add to that the fact that the US military has hundreds of thousands of troops just across the border in two neighboring countries and the 'aircraft carrier' at diego garcia plus the US Naval presence in the region and if I was the Iranians I would very seriously regard the US as a threat to be countered preferably (from the Iranian perspective) with nuclear weapons.
that said, as an American I wouldn't trust them with nukes and don't think they should have them. the question of what to do about that could fill up another post i'm sure!
June 27, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The spice must flow!
June 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect for an otherwise cogent argument, the main reason we have not attacked North Korea is that the last time we did that it brought the Chinese Red Army into the fight. The Chinese have made it clear that they still will not tolerate an invasion of North Korea. We didn't want to start World War III then and we don't want to do it now. That is why for over half a century we have tolerated a divided Korea with a nutjob dictator in the North.
June 27, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That and the fact that NK is armed to the teeth! Yes, China backing them plays a large role in it but even if they weren't many administrations have realized we don't really want to deal with the type of fight the NK is willing to put up. South Korea is our ally and we're not trying to get them slaughtered if we can avoid it. No matter how good our surgical strikes and such were, SOMETHING will get through and it would be a very bloody price to pay. That's why cooler heads always seem to prevail now on the peninsula. everyone realizes the costs.
June 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is ever so interesting that in countries (protected by border guards) opposed to states, cities or districts (with porous borders) murder rates are directly related (in reverse relationship, technically this is "indirectly" related) to availability of firearms. It seems that while people kill people, they do it mostly with guns.
In any case, the people who just set off a spree of killing this time were 5 members of the Supreme court who used "the pen."
June 27, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in Britain (where guns are not as widely available as in the US) the urban areas are constantly worried about the trend of knife violence that runs rampant. turn on the nightly news in london and instead of 'two teens shot to death...' you'll see 'two teens stabbed to death...'. it is interesting how people who want to harm other people will do so with whatever weapon is available to them, isn't it?
it's also amazing how if you read historical documents violent crime and murder has been around since the very beginnings of human society. curious, no?
June 27, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were 757 murders in ALL OF England and Wales last year http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/01/uk.ukcrime.
The population is 54 million. That is a rate of 1.4 per 100 thousand! For the whole country!
By comparison, there were 17034 murders in the US in a population of 300 million, for a rate of 5.7 per 100 thousand. I'd rather take my chances with a knife, thank you.
June 27, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain Switzerland who has a HUMONGOUS gun culture.
June 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
After you explain the 150 countries accounting for over 6 billion of the 6 billion and a handful of people where the incidence of murder is directly related to the availability of guns, I will gladly try to figure out the 2 or the anomalous countries.
I am waiting..............
Done yet?..........
June 27, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to sound insensitive but it does carry some merit. Banning Guns is Akin to Abstinence only education.
Look at the studies. Telling children not to have sex until marriage and instead of educating them on sexual safety has seen the teen pregnancy rate rise after 15 years of steadily decreasing, and has put more young women at risk for STD's (1 in 5 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted infection according to the CDC). Telling them not to have sex and not teaching them about it doesn't mean they'll not engage in it, it means they'll do it carelessly because they don't know the inherent risks.
Let's look at guns. First off there are far fewer gun accidents in rural households that have guns in the open than urban households because EDUCATION. Kids who learn to shoot and learn gun safety at an early age learn to respect the power of a gun. Kids who don't usually end up playing accidental bang bang cowboy with their neighbors father's pistol.
Banning guns makes law abiding citizens easier targets for law-breaking-gun-toting-criminals. States where there are concealed carry laws have very little crime because the criminals don't know if they'll get shot trying to rob someone. A criminal has to assume that EVERYONE is armed.
I do feel that everyone that purchases a gun must have a gun license which means they've taken a gun course and passed a proficiency exam. This ensures that we keep a well educated gun society (much like Switzerland where all adult males must serve in the the Swiss Militia and must keep an assault rifle in the home).
For fear of sounding like "Big Brother" look at what "banning" marijuana has done. The scary thing is it's easier for a 10 year old to get a bag of weed than it is for him to get a pack of cigarettes.
June 27, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you for the legalization of marijuana? Whether I agree with you or not, that is at least more of a logical position for someone who is against gun bans.
June 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm for legalization and regulation of marijuana. (Although, I'm not a user) It is a commodity which has fewer harmful effects than alcohol and is easier to produce. By legalizing it we can grow it cheaper, tax it, and fund other programs.
The drug culture is a multi-billion dollar industry that goes untaxed and unregulated. The ones making the money are the cartels, the dealers, and the money laundering banks. Society bears the burden of cost. We house the criminals who break these "laws" and we have to have officers to enforce them.
Kids can buy dope because drug dealers don't check I.D.s they only want to know if you got the cash. Stores who sell cigarettes have become increasingly vigilant about checking identification because they don't want to give up their very lucrative cigarette revenue.
June 27, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if you have an arsenal to rival Ft. Bragg. If you want to stop gun violence this is what you do - anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a felony has already formed the intent to kill, therefore he should be locked up for life. Anyone whose child uses his gun for any reason whatsoever without the supervision of the gun owner should be locked up for life.
June 27, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to solve the prison overpopulation problem.
June 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back off, man! She didn't say that we should feed them, just that we should lock them up for life. I don't see much of an overpopulation problem there at all!
June 27, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the problem - all those law and order types want everyone locked up but they don't want to pay to lock them up, they don't want to have to be burdened with the fear of being locked up if their kids use their guns, they don't want "lunatics" to have guns, they don't want criminals to have guns, they don't want kids to have guns, they want the right to conceal and carry and they want all these regulations enforced without any kind of inconvenience to them.
June 27, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Hawk guy, you've made a pretty good argument as to why gun control doesn't work to reduce crime. What's your idea for addressing the underlying issues that lead people to murder in the first place?
Personally, I'm with Chris Rock. Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. If semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are banned, there would be far fewer bullets flying around.
Ultimately, Americans are a lazy bunch. Stabbing somebody is work. Beating somebody up, even more work. Even reloading is work. If you make it harder to get the tools and harder to use the tools, fewer people will do so.
June 27, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually referenced Rock's "bullet control" argument in another posting, and someone kindly pointed out that the idea originates with Izzard.
-------------------------
Having said that, one of my favorite long, rambling t-shirt quotes is this:
The gun is not the point. The killer is not the point. The poor former person that intersected the path of a flying bullet and is now lying in a puddle of his own blood is the point.
June 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
June 27, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the tough question that everyone tends to try to avoid by finding more stringent firearms control regulations and more 'tough on crime' legislation.
I honestly don't know the answer. I think anyone claiming to know some simple solution is full of shit and probably resorting to ideologically based partisan talking points.
I think the approach most likely to have any success at all of addressing the underlying issues behind violent crime requires the initial admission and understanding that human beings are animals in a very literal sense. while we've evolved to develop amazing technology and social constructs we are at our fundamental basis still animals. as such we have a natural capacity for violence and destruction that should not be dismissed and it is ever present. our history has shown that to a large extent we can live amongst and interact with each other without resorting to this capacity for violence and destruction but that it can and very often does manifest itself in our interactions with each other.
that being said, i think the thought that in a very real sense our society creates many of its own problems by the unfair and often brutally harsh way it processes people is quite valid. there are a lot of born losers among us (not in the sense that they aren't capable but in the sense that they never have a real fighting chance) and we deal with them as a general afterthought as a society unless we're forced to by something they do that goes against societal norms. by that i mean that there are lots of people who don't have the emotional, educational, financial or intellectual resources (for a unbelievably varied host of reasons!) to properly (peacefully and positively) cope with and thrive amongst the complex challenges that life presents them with. this isn't a new phenomenon created by modernity since it's been in existence since the very beginnings of human society and like i said before I don't know any easy solution to it. Maybe there isn't a solution! But acknowledging the problem is deeper than 'law and order' , 'rich and poor', etc... is a probably a good first step.
one more thing, i'm not simply trying to make some 'woe is me' type of argument that makes excuses for people by simply using the lament of 'the system'. I think that the concept of 'personal responsibility' is extremely accurate as a basis for the building of social norms of behavior. if we're going to live together then people NEED to be held accountable for their actions and what (positive or negative) they bring to the table. I guess the point i'm trying to make is that in the larger sense it's also imperative that we all collectively be held accountable for our actions and choices as a society. If we choose to not educate and properly prepare large segments of our populace to deal with our society then we have to be willing to pay the costs (be they legal, medical, emotional, ethical,etc) that such a choice will entail when they subsequently struggle to do so. This is bigger than just saying we need better schools or more jobs. An example being that if it is the norm that parents aren't able to work to support their family and to raise their family at the same time, then we have to realize we'll all pay the costs of those children not being reared properly.
alright, i'm stepping off my soapbox now!
June 28, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment