The author of the freakonomics blog surveys the demise of the DC handgun ban and concludes the ban was a waste of time:
But let's take the issue further and examine whether an individual right to bear arms ought to exist. Well, yes, I believe it should.
First off, legislative bans are impractical. As long as there is a demand there will be a supply (the drug trade is a prime example). Now, there is no denying that the government can make obtaining a gun much more difficult. Unlike marijuana you can't grow guns in your backyard. However, those that really need them will find a way to obtain them (those needing them likely being hard-core criminals). You can dismiss the saying that "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" (or some variation) as trite, but the underlying logic is hard to dismiss. As long as criminals have firearms I would prefer that the law-abiding have the option of obtaining similar weaponry.
A lot of people like to point to foreign countries as great examples of why gun bans work. Japan is a prime example. In Japan guns are so rare that even members of the yakuza are said to rarely carry them. Britain of course has famously banned guns and has long enjoyed lower gun crime rates than the U.S. But, as everyone should know, a cardinal rule of examining statistics is that correlation does not equal causation.
Guns have been banned in Jamaica for over 30 years while violence has spiraled (and this is an island nation where it would logically seem that enforcement would be easier). While the UK has long had gun restrictive laws in effect the country enjoyed lower murder rates even when it not regulate firearms. (London and NYC had greatly different murder rates in the 1800s when neither one had gun laws on the books). Washington DC and many states where you can not only own a gun but also have a concealed weapons permit have wildly different murder rates -- and you can guess whose are higher.
The reason for these differences of course are cultural. Washington DC and Jamaica happen to be home to a lot of predators with a low regard for human life. That shouldn't strike anyone as a controversial statement. Just perform this thought exercise: if Japan removed its gun ban tomorrow does anyone think that the Japanese would suddenly start arming themselves and shooting each other? Remember, when people criticize the U.S. as being a violent country they are only referring to certain parts. You can visit plenty of states and communities in the U.S. and feel every bit as safe as in Western Europe (actually, in terms of petty crime, you are probably more likely to experience crime in Western Europe than plenty of places in the U.S.). Without even knowing the respective gun laws of each place one can guess whether East St. Louis or Fargo, North Dakota has a higher per capita murder rate.
I would submit that Japan has lower gun crime than the U.S. primarily because it is...full of Japanese people, while many crime-ridden communities in the U.S. are full of those born into broken homes with a poorly instilled sense of values. But that's a complicated answer, and politicians would much prefer simply to legislate a problem away through faux solutions such as gun bans rather than a true examination of the problem.
In the final analysis, there is no evidence that gun bans help solve the problem of gun violence. It also stands to reason that letting citizens arm themselves won't make the problem worse. Therefore we should allow them to do so, as given the choice between two similar outcomes we should choose the one that allows for greater freedom.
It seems to me that these citywide gun bans are as ineffective as many other gun policies are for reducing gun crime. It is extremely difficult to legislate or regulate guns when there is an active black market and a huge stock of existing guns. When the people who value guns the most are the ones who use them in the drug trade, there is next to nothing you can do to keep the guns out of their hands.Exactly. But the issue goes much deeper. First off in the debate we need to consider that the Constitution explicitly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This does not refer to a collective right given that the entire Bill of Rights deals with individual rights. That right there should be the end of the story until the Constitution is amended.
But let's take the issue further and examine whether an individual right to bear arms ought to exist. Well, yes, I believe it should.
First off, legislative bans are impractical. As long as there is a demand there will be a supply (the drug trade is a prime example). Now, there is no denying that the government can make obtaining a gun much more difficult. Unlike marijuana you can't grow guns in your backyard. However, those that really need them will find a way to obtain them (those needing them likely being hard-core criminals). You can dismiss the saying that "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" (or some variation) as trite, but the underlying logic is hard to dismiss. As long as criminals have firearms I would prefer that the law-abiding have the option of obtaining similar weaponry.
A lot of people like to point to foreign countries as great examples of why gun bans work. Japan is a prime example. In Japan guns are so rare that even members of the yakuza are said to rarely carry them. Britain of course has famously banned guns and has long enjoyed lower gun crime rates than the U.S. But, as everyone should know, a cardinal rule of examining statistics is that correlation does not equal causation.
Guns have been banned in Jamaica for over 30 years while violence has spiraled (and this is an island nation where it would logically seem that enforcement would be easier). While the UK has long had gun restrictive laws in effect the country enjoyed lower murder rates even when it not regulate firearms. (London and NYC had greatly different murder rates in the 1800s when neither one had gun laws on the books). Washington DC and many states where you can not only own a gun but also have a concealed weapons permit have wildly different murder rates -- and you can guess whose are higher.
The reason for these differences of course are cultural. Washington DC and Jamaica happen to be home to a lot of predators with a low regard for human life. That shouldn't strike anyone as a controversial statement. Just perform this thought exercise: if Japan removed its gun ban tomorrow does anyone think that the Japanese would suddenly start arming themselves and shooting each other? Remember, when people criticize the U.S. as being a violent country they are only referring to certain parts. You can visit plenty of states and communities in the U.S. and feel every bit as safe as in Western Europe (actually, in terms of petty crime, you are probably more likely to experience crime in Western Europe than plenty of places in the U.S.). Without even knowing the respective gun laws of each place one can guess whether East St. Louis or Fargo, North Dakota has a higher per capita murder rate.
I would submit that Japan has lower gun crime than the U.S. primarily because it is...full of Japanese people, while many crime-ridden communities in the U.S. are full of those born into broken homes with a poorly instilled sense of values. But that's a complicated answer, and politicians would much prefer simply to legislate a problem away through faux solutions such as gun bans rather than a true examination of the problem.
In the final analysis, there is no evidence that gun bans help solve the problem of gun violence. It also stands to reason that letting citizens arm themselves won't make the problem worse. Therefore we should allow them to do so, as given the choice between two similar outcomes we should choose the one that allows for greater freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment