by Asher Dratel | Anti-gun activists employ flawed logic.
The shootings at Virginia Tech have created a surprisingly low level of debate over controversial national issues. Compare the media response over the past two weeks to that following Columbine, when Americans heard how TV, movies, music, video games, clothing and just about anything under the sun would turn all teenagers into rampant killing machines. After VT we were treated to a rather compassionate response that did not try to demonize anybody except the shooter and didn’t attempt to whip up a public fervor. Unfortunately, in any such incident, some sort of public policy debate must take place.
Most Americans’ gut reaction to a shooting is to support new legislation outlawing the specific gun used in the crime or to make it illegal to bring a gun wherever the shooting happened. While the media response to this incident has been mostly benign, one CNN article, titled “Let’s Lay Down Our Right To Bear Arms” by UCLA professor Tom Plate, has proved exceptional. Ignoring the mind-boggling implication that Americans should voluntarily give up one of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights, it is worth discussing the popular anti-gun arguments he uses.
Plate makes the tried-and-true argument that fewer guns means fewer shootings and more guns mean more shootings, claiming that “[t]he probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren’t so easily available to ordinary citizens.” In other words, the availability of so many guns will cause students to shoot up their classmates. The fact is that the vast majority of legally owned guns will never be used in a crime. The number of legally purchased guns by US citizens has been rising since the 70s, yet the handgun homicide, suicide and overall homicide rates have been dropping since the mid-90s, when a crime wave occurred that has been attributed to the crack cocaine explosion, not any firearms availability. Many are quick to point out that this could be attributed to increased police funding and other funding. Of course, that point is made moot by the very issue it’s responding to. The question is not “Do more guns mean less crime?” but “Do more guns mean more crime?” and the facts show that more guns do not mean more crime.
Plate also gives an anecdote about his experience with a mugger. Apparently, last month he was held at gunpoint behind his home while bringing his groceries in. To trump up his story, Plate points out, “The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head: just so that if you weren’t scared of the crack shot muggers prowling our streets, you now know they’re using lasers to make sure they kill you.” He also points out that the mugging occurred in Beverly Hills, the home of the rich and famous, a low-crime neighborhood. What Plate neglects to mention is that California has the strictest state-level gun laws, and that getting a concealed carry permit in any urban area is pretty much impossible. He should not be surprised that a criminal would target him there. If one is going to rob somebody, one might as well do it in an affluent area are since victims would be less likely to be able to defend themselves.
Another favorite argument of anti-gun advocates is that if people insist on owning guns, they should at least not be allowed to carry them around. They argue that if people carry guns around, it is only a matter of time until there are shootouts at the Mobil Station Corral over somebody taking too long to pump their gas. However, since Florida introduced a law permitting licensed gun owners to carry concealed firearms, the murder rate in Florida has dropped by 21%, seemingly impossible if “concealed carry” causes every argument to end with a coroner’s van. Closer to home, Massachusetts is second to California when it comes to private firearm ownership, and recently the Tufts community has witnessed a spate of brazen sexual assaults happening in Medford and Somerville. If there were a chance that the ladies walking around campus were carrying guns, these mostly unarmed men might hesitate before assaulting them.
This last point, about carry weapons, ties back to the VT shootings. School campuses are “gun-free zones”, a term that really translates to “nobody here can stop you should you choose to shoot somebody here.” Seeing as how VT is in Virginia, it is conceivable that at least one of the victims was in possession of a carry permit, but left it at home when he went to class. Imagine if just one person along Seung-Hui Cho’s path through campus had been carrying a pistol of his or her own. It is impossible to know how many lives could have been saved if somebody could have legally carried their own gun to stop Cho from using his. There are dozens of instances of massacres happening in so-called “gun-free zones,” and almost every case, had somebody other than the criminal had a gun, several lives could have been saved. It is sad that the nation has not yet learned that lesson.
Mr. Dratel is a sophomore majoring in History.
Comments