Another mass
shooting, and as night follows the day, another litany of calls for stricter
gun control. It was by any measure
an horrific event, and the perpetrator – insane or not - committed what can
only be called an evil act. But before we rush off to draft new laws, perhaps
we need to look at a few facts.
1) The
statistics concerning overall crime are clear; anyone interested in the effects
of private firearm ownership on crime rates should read John Lott’s “More Guns,
Less Crime.” It is a dry book, but
the statistical analysis has not been meaningfully challenged by anyone on any
side of the argument; Lott established a strong statistical correlation between
higher firearm ownership rates and lower crime rates, demonstrating that for
every 1% increase in firearm ownership, there is at least a 1% reduction in
overall crime rates.
2) In the last
30 years there have been 78 shootings in the United States that had four or
more victims and was not a drug – gang related event. Those 78 shootings resulted in 547 dead. During that 30-year period there were
559,000 murders in the US – among 310 million people; less than 1/10th
of 1% of the murders were mass shootings. And while the US murder rate is
higher than Europe’s, the violent crime rate in Europe is substantially higher
than that in the US.
3) Violent crime
in the US has fallen steadily over the last several decades. The Justice Department states that
between 1993 and 2011 firearm related murders dropped 39%, and non-fatal
firearm related crimes dropped 69%.
4) In all but
one of the ‘mass shooting’ events, the shootings took place in ‘Gun Free
Zones,’ meaning that not one of those being attacked was able to defend
himself. For those who don’t know
(to include a formerly elected official in Colorado), US military bases are
perhaps the strictest gun free zones in the US. At the same time there are
repeated reports every month of attempted violent crimes that are stopped by
armed citizens; in short, when people are given the opportunity to defend
themselves, they will.
5) While various
politicians lauded the Washington DC police response, the truth is that about
the best response time you can expect (unless there is a policeman
serendipitously nearby) is three minutes from call receipt to response – and
that in a dense urban area.
Average responses are longer.
Where I live it runs about 15 minutes. This is not to criticize the police; but the police can’t be
everywhere at once, they certainly aren’t mind readers, and they don’t know
when and where a psychopath is going to strike. And while the police may get there in 4 or 5 minutes, the
odds are that the shooting has already taken place. (The average violent crime lasts 3 minutes, start to
finish.)
6) Courts have
traditionally noted that the police – any police – are not here to protect you
individually; they are here to ‘protect and serve’ the community. They are here to find bad guys and
arrest them. The concept that
somehow we can figure out how to get police to a shooting before bad guys kills
someone is foolish – it can’t be done.
7) In this case
the man used a shotgun, a weapon that hasn’t been outlawed even throughout
Europe (and the weapon he took from the security personnel). Even the Soviet Union allowed shotguns. Restricting specific types of firearms
solves nothing.
Which leaves us
with this:
A) The odds of getting into one
of these situations is incredibly small – thank God
B) If you do find yourself in a
mass shootings, it is almost a certainty that you are in a ‘no gun zone’
C) Given B, and assuming you are
a law-abiding citizen, you will be unarmed
D) If you do find yourself inside
a mass shooting, or for that matter in any violent crime, the police will
almost to a certainty not arrive in time to help you
So,
before we draft any more laws, how about we answer this question: Should you
have the right to defend yourself?
Because no one else is going to.
No comments:
Post a Comment