Invincible Ignorance  Blue Eagle editorial February 2000 Studies have shown that there are essentially only two kinds of gun laws that have the effect of lowering crime in a free society: laws that discourage gun possession by criminals without reducing the availability of firearms to non-felons, and laws that encourage the use of firearms for self defense by law-abiding citizens without encouraging gun use by criminals. The first can be achieved through laws that inflict harsher penalties for gun use or possession by felons. The second can be achieved, and has consistently been achieved every place it's been tried, by passing "right-to-carry" laws that allow law-abiding citizens to own and carry concealed firearms.  Most gun-control laws, however, have the opposite effect -- they reduce the number of guns among law-abiding citizens, while doing almost nothing to reduce the number of guns among criminals. This raises the ratio of gun ownership among criminals relative to gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, and thus increases crime -- and this has always been the result every time these gun-control laws have been passed or strengthened.
This phenomenon is well documented, most recently in an exhaustive study first published in the University of Chicago's prestigious Journal of Legal Studies, but it has long been recognized and is well known by those whose education includes the lessons of Western Civilization. The Founders knew it well. Thomas Paine observed that personal arms "discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived the use of them." And Thomas Jefferson was quoting an even earlier source, Cesare Beccaria, when he said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They [are] laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration."  Every change in gun control law has results that are consistent with this position. In America, states that have passed right-to-carry laws have seen their violent crime rates plummet faster and farther than the national average, while countries like Great Britain and Australia, which recently banned private gun ownership, have seen their armed crime rates skyrocket. Yet for some reason the gun control advocates refuse even to consider the extensive evidence. They continue to chant the "Gun Control Will Reduce Crime" mantra with religious fervor, while vilifying gun-ownership advocates as dangerous kooks. Meanwhile, their efforts serve to put even their own children in greater danger of death from violent crime. In the face of such invincible ignorance, of what use is reasoned discourse?
Other excellent editorials on this subject: by Thomas Sowell by Marianne M. Jennings Click here for an index of other Blue Eagle editorials. 
|