Of Box Cutters and Fertilizer
02.26.2002
A friend recently took the position, in a friendly, impromptu debate, that our nation, The United States of America, would be a better place if our government were to ban all 'assault weapons,' such as the AK-47, the M-16, the MAC-10, etc., from private posession - including even semi-automatic clones that merely look like assault weapons. He felt, however, that people were justified in owning handguns and hunting shotguns, his arguement being that assault weapons are designed only for one thing, that being to kill people, and therefore NOBODY needs to own such things. I of course disagreed...
Before we get to the political/philosophical part of this issue, let's first look at some statistics from the FBI's "Uniform Crime Report" for Year 2000:
(These crime reports can be found here)
-
"Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.9 percent of all violent crimes in 2000, and robberies made up an additional 28.6 percent. Forcible rapes comprised 6.3 percent of all violent crimes, and homicides constituted 1.1 percent of the total. Personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc.,w ere used in 31.5 percent of all murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults, collectively, in 2000. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.9 percent of all violent crimes; firearms were used in 25.6 percent; and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.0 percent. Data concerning weapons used in connection with forcible rape were not collected."
-
In addition, total homicides, according to the report, were 15,517 in year 2000, and 15,522 in year 1999.
-
Fact: More young children drown in 5 gallon buckets each year than die in firearm accidents.
-
Fact: The 18 and 19 year old gang members that the anti-gun organizations count in their statistics are NOT children.
-
Fact: Children who own guns given to them by parents are less likely to perpetrate a violent crime, AND in general are less likely to commit crimes at all.
Now, let's explore these facts.
First off, note that violent criminals were more likely to kill or assault somebody with parts of their body than with a firearm. Indeed, 'other weapons'- including the edged weapons that my friend in question likes to collect, as well as I assume such mundane things as moving cars, baseball bats, etc., were three times as likely to be used in violent crimes than firearms. Thus, instead of banning firearms, we would - using my friend's logic - be better off by beginning with the banning of feet, hands, knives, swords, cars, baseball bats, laptop computers, bricks... or indeed, anything that could possibly be used as a weapon in the heat of the moment. In fact, by his logic, wouldn't martial artists be considered 'assault people' who need to be registered with the government in a huge, bureaucratic database? When they ban the martial arts, only criminals will be martial artists.
Second, as Professor John R. Lott has shown in his solid, well-regarded research findings, in places where ownership and legal carry of firearms are allowed, violent crime decreases in turn. In other words, by allowing people to own and carry concealed firearms you decrease violent crime. Why? Because criminals DO NOT like to assault armed victims - it's too dangerous.
"But what about the children!?!?"
If you teach your children how to handle, shoot and RESPECT firearms, they will learn the proper way of thinking about firearms, they will have their curiosity appeased, and if they encounter a loaded firearm outside the supervision of an adult, they will be more prepared to decide the proper action to take (generally: don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult) and be able to advise others around them to do the same.
Fourth, so called 'assault weapons', which is really what my friend is worried about (he says he would allow people to keep their hunting shotguns and six-shot revolvers - never mind that this restriction wouldn't be observed by criminals) are used in VERY few crimes, especially when compared to other firearms, or indeed any other sort of weapon. Why, therefore, are they demonized? Why are a majority of law abiding citizens denied their right to own and enjoy such firearms simply because of a few psychos out there are willing to shoot up a school, restaurant, or whatever? This is akin to a teacher denying his entire class recess because one child was talking in class. And single shot .50 caliber rifles have NEVER to my knowledge been used in a domestic crime - if one had, I GUARANTEE you that it would be on the national news and a hot topic - and yet they, too, are demonized and are on the anti-gunner's ban list - the proverbial solution looking for a problem. My friend claims that such guns are made for one purpose only, and that's to kill people. I beg to differ, as I quite enjoy shooting my MAK-90 (a semi-automatic - and therefore NOT an assault weapon - AK-47 clone) at paper targets. But even if what he says were so, that such guns are designed only to kill people... well, sometimes it's necessary to kill people in order to defend yourself, and sometimes a semi-automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine is what is required.
"What?" you say? "When would anybody need such a gun in the United States? We're a civilized nation, after all. When would things be so bad that you'd need to fire many bullets in a short period of time, without reloading?"
Well, take the Rodney King/Watts riots a few years back for example. During those riots, the police were TOO SCARED to come into the area so looters and violent criminals took advantage of the situation. They broke into neighborhood stores and took anything they could carry. Some of those store owners had little or no insurance because they couldn't afford insurance in such a high-crime neighborhood, so their only recourse during the riots was to use their SKS rifles to defend their store. They defended both their lives and their livelihood only through the use of their 'assault weapons' as roving gangs of looters attempted to take their wares, a situation where revolvers (which can only hold 6-7 shots before needing to be reloaded) or even semi-auto handguns (which on average can hold only 10 shots at a time) may not have been enough. Some would say that they should have let the looters take the stuff, that it wasn't worth taking a human life over, but this is not true. By taking the store owners wares, the looters were taking the livelihood of these people, and therefore would have put them out on thestreet to starve. Thus, the store owners were saving their own lives by saving their wares (this is not to mention that every major law system in the history of the world, including those in the Torah/Talmud/Old Testament, allow that people have a right to defend their lives, their families and their properties). This is only one such example - another would be a natural disasters such as a hurricane where looters would take advantage of the situation - but I believe it shows my point.
Fifth, and I know I'll be accused of using scare tactics on this one, but I still think it is a valid argument. Consider this: In the United States during the year 2000, approximately 15,000 people were murdered TOTAL (note that only about 3700 were killed by criminals using firearms). In contrast, during the Nazi regime the Auschwitz death camp killed approximately 20,000 people PER DAY, people who were lead to slaughter because they had no means to defend themselves (the Nazi gun control act years before made it illegal for anybody without a valid permit, which were of course impossible to get - especially Jews - to own a firearm). Indeed, and that's not the worst of it. As Robert F. Melson, Professor of Political Science, Purdue University, stated, "Since the Second World War many more people have been killed as victims of domestic massacres and partial or total genocide's than by international war. State-perpetrated massacres are a greater danger to the world community than war itself." In light of that statement, how many of the victims of those massacres do you think were armed and able to resist? (Note that, even as I write this, many of those who were disarmed by US Special Forces in Afganistan and are being pillaged, assaulted and raped by the so-called soldiers of the newly formed government... they could DEFINITELY use their assault rifles back!)
When it comes down to it, though, the simple truth is that banning such guns (or banning any guns for that matter) will do NOTHING to make our society safer. If somebody is a psycho and wants to kill a bunch of people, they will find a way. Remember this, that the two biggest terrorist attacks on U.S. soil EVER were perpetrated using fertilizer and box cutters, respectively.
Agree? Disagree? Think I'm full of it?
Email Me