Hanniballs
03-13-2007, 03:26 PM
Below is an essay by a good friend of mine who has every reason in the world to want stiffer gun laws, and yet mysteriously desires the opposite:
I was sitting in Choir class around 11:20 when we heard the first few 'pops' coming from the commons area. It was the end of the spring semester, so most of us just assumed they were fireworks someone lit off inside the building as a part of the latest “senior prank”. A moment later, there were people pouring out of the cafeteria and running down the hallway past our classroom. One student ran into our classroom with a horrified look on his face, saying only “everybody get out – they've got guns!” before he, himself, ran down the corridor towards perceived safety. The way that the choir classroom that I was in was set up, not everyone could leave the room quickly, as there were chairs in the way. After about half the class evacuated through one of the two doors to the classroom, the other fifty of us barricaded ourselves in the choir office. Hunkered down, none of us had any idea that the next four hours would be the longest of our lives. The next excruciating hours before the SWAT team arrived were filled with the sounds of gunshots, pipe-bomb explosions and the constant fear of the unknown. To say the very least – this was not a walk in the park for my classmates and I. In the aftermath of the Columbine massacre, all the gun control legislation that followed did absolutely nothing except make people feel better. What would have happened if the principal or one of the teachers had been carrying a handgun that day? Would that day's outcome possibly have been different? The truth is - gun control legislation makes people feel better and safer – at the cost of actually saving lives
The root of most ineffective gun control legislation is fear – but more importantly: fear that is based on myths about guns. One myth is that if you are attacked, it is safer to react passively and submit to your attacker. “Women who behave passively are 2.5 times more likely to end up being seriously injured than women who resist a criminal confrontation with a gun. Men who behave passively are 1.4 times more likely to end up being seriously injured than men who resist a criminal confrontation with a gun.” (Lott). Another myth is that a gun in the home is more likely to kill you or someone you love than be employed in self-defense. When the numbers are actually scrutinized on the matter, it's found that “...at most, about 4 percent of those murders could actually be attributed to the gun that was in the home.” (Lott). The myth that America has such high crime rates due to gun ownership is perhaps the grandest of them all. There are other countries like New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway which have gun ownership comparable to ours in the US, and yet they enjoy lower crime rates. “Switzerland has a lower murder rate than any countries that border it. It has a gun ownership rate about two and a half times Germany's and a murder rate of about 40 percent less.” (Lott). There seems to be an inverse relationship between gun ownership rates and crime rates.
When less restrictive gun controls are in effect, crime rates decrease. Some states in the US have what are known as “shall-issue” laws and other states have what are called “may-issue” laws. In shall-issue states, in order to get a concealed weapon permit or license, all you need to do is show up, pay a fee and get your picture taken. In may-issue states, one needs to prove that they need to carry a concealed weapon and for what reason – permits are issued in a case-by-case manner. Overwhelmingly, states that have shall-issue laws saw decreases in crime rates at the time that the laws were added to the books. “A precipitous drop started right when the law was passed – not a couple of years before or after – and the size of the drop is closely related to the percent of the adult population with permits.” (Lott). This all goes to show that less-restrictive gun control laws certainly help with crime rates, but what about those more restrictive gun laws?
Laws that restrict gun ownership have little impact on actually saving lives. The Brady Bill which was signed into law in 1994 required licensed gun dealers to run a background check on potential gun buyers and also imposed a waiting period on firearms purchases. 6 years later, it was found to have only a minute effect on homicide and suicide rates. “Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates. “ (Ludwig). The other piece to this ineffective legislation puzzle is the fact that many times, laws are introduced in response to some outlandish tragedy that occurred such as the Columbine massacre. The problem is that, the solutions are as outlandish as the massacre was itself “..diagnoses and prescriptions developed or promoted in the immediate aftermath of such events are especially likely to be irrelevant or even counterproductive.” (Kleck).
In conclusion, we need to start taking emotion out of the equation and making legislation that makes sense based on fact – not based on what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. Vodka makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside too – but it doesn't mean that you should make important decisions after you drink it.
Works Cited
John Lott. “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” American experiment. 13 March 2007. http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/aeqv2n2lott.pdfl.
Jens Ludwig, Philip Cook. “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.” Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 284 No. 5. (2 August 2001). 13 March 2007.
http://jama.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/5/585
Gary Kleck. “There Are No Lessons to Be Learned from Littleton.” Criminal Justice Ethics. Vol. 18 Issue 1, p2, 4p. (Winter/Spring 1999). 13 March 2007.
http://libsys.uah.edu:2833/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2374031&site=ehost-live
Was posted on a car forum I visit and thought I would share with the rest of you.
I was sitting in Choir class around 11:20 when we heard the first few 'pops' coming from the commons area. It was the end of the spring semester, so most of us just assumed they were fireworks someone lit off inside the building as a part of the latest “senior prank”. A moment later, there were people pouring out of the cafeteria and running down the hallway past our classroom. One student ran into our classroom with a horrified look on his face, saying only “everybody get out – they've got guns!” before he, himself, ran down the corridor towards perceived safety. The way that the choir classroom that I was in was set up, not everyone could leave the room quickly, as there were chairs in the way. After about half the class evacuated through one of the two doors to the classroom, the other fifty of us barricaded ourselves in the choir office. Hunkered down, none of us had any idea that the next four hours would be the longest of our lives. The next excruciating hours before the SWAT team arrived were filled with the sounds of gunshots, pipe-bomb explosions and the constant fear of the unknown. To say the very least – this was not a walk in the park for my classmates and I. In the aftermath of the Columbine massacre, all the gun control legislation that followed did absolutely nothing except make people feel better. What would have happened if the principal or one of the teachers had been carrying a handgun that day? Would that day's outcome possibly have been different? The truth is - gun control legislation makes people feel better and safer – at the cost of actually saving lives
The root of most ineffective gun control legislation is fear – but more importantly: fear that is based on myths about guns. One myth is that if you are attacked, it is safer to react passively and submit to your attacker. “Women who behave passively are 2.5 times more likely to end up being seriously injured than women who resist a criminal confrontation with a gun. Men who behave passively are 1.4 times more likely to end up being seriously injured than men who resist a criminal confrontation with a gun.” (Lott). Another myth is that a gun in the home is more likely to kill you or someone you love than be employed in self-defense. When the numbers are actually scrutinized on the matter, it's found that “...at most, about 4 percent of those murders could actually be attributed to the gun that was in the home.” (Lott). The myth that America has such high crime rates due to gun ownership is perhaps the grandest of them all. There are other countries like New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway which have gun ownership comparable to ours in the US, and yet they enjoy lower crime rates. “Switzerland has a lower murder rate than any countries that border it. It has a gun ownership rate about two and a half times Germany's and a murder rate of about 40 percent less.” (Lott). There seems to be an inverse relationship between gun ownership rates and crime rates.
When less restrictive gun controls are in effect, crime rates decrease. Some states in the US have what are known as “shall-issue” laws and other states have what are called “may-issue” laws. In shall-issue states, in order to get a concealed weapon permit or license, all you need to do is show up, pay a fee and get your picture taken. In may-issue states, one needs to prove that they need to carry a concealed weapon and for what reason – permits are issued in a case-by-case manner. Overwhelmingly, states that have shall-issue laws saw decreases in crime rates at the time that the laws were added to the books. “A precipitous drop started right when the law was passed – not a couple of years before or after – and the size of the drop is closely related to the percent of the adult population with permits.” (Lott). This all goes to show that less-restrictive gun control laws certainly help with crime rates, but what about those more restrictive gun laws?
Laws that restrict gun ownership have little impact on actually saving lives. The Brady Bill which was signed into law in 1994 required licensed gun dealers to run a background check on potential gun buyers and also imposed a waiting period on firearms purchases. 6 years later, it was found to have only a minute effect on homicide and suicide rates. “Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates. “ (Ludwig). The other piece to this ineffective legislation puzzle is the fact that many times, laws are introduced in response to some outlandish tragedy that occurred such as the Columbine massacre. The problem is that, the solutions are as outlandish as the massacre was itself “..diagnoses and prescriptions developed or promoted in the immediate aftermath of such events are especially likely to be irrelevant or even counterproductive.” (Kleck).
In conclusion, we need to start taking emotion out of the equation and making legislation that makes sense based on fact – not based on what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. Vodka makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside too – but it doesn't mean that you should make important decisions after you drink it.
Works Cited
John Lott. “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” American experiment. 13 March 2007. http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/aeqv2n2lott.pdfl.
Jens Ludwig, Philip Cook. “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.” Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 284 No. 5. (2 August 2001). 13 March 2007.
http://jama.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/5/585
Gary Kleck. “There Are No Lessons to Be Learned from Littleton.” Criminal Justice Ethics. Vol. 18 Issue 1, p2, 4p. (Winter/Spring 1999). 13 March 2007.
http://libsys.uah.edu:2833/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2374031&site=ehost-live
Was posted on a car forum I visit and thought I would share with the rest of you.