Think How High the Homicide Rate Would Have Been If We Hadn't Banned Guns

Jacob Sullum | September 7, 2007

This week the District of Columbia filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold D.C.'s gun ban. The district's lawyers argue that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which overturned the ban last March, was wrong to conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. But even if the appeals court were right about that, they say, D.C.'s restrictions on gun possession should still be upheld as reasonable public safety measures:

It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun....Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.

There are two problems with this argument. First, D.C. not only bans handgun ownership by anyone who isn't a current or former law enforcement officer; it also requires that long guns be kept locked or unloaded and disassembled, which makes using them against home invaders impractical. The law effectively prohibits armed self-defense, which is hard to reconcile with "the right to keep and bear arms."

Second, there is no reason to believe that D.C.'s gun ban has reduced violent crime. While it disarms law-abiding citizens, criminals have little difficulty obtaining guns, to judge by the city's consistently high homicide rate. As University of Maryland economist John Lott notes in a Washington Times op-ed piece, D.C.'s homicide and violent crime rates, which were falling in the years before the gun ban, climbed after it took effect:

In the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. But there is one fact that seems particularly hard to ignore. D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but has only once fallen below what it was in 1976 (that happened years later, in 1985). Does D.C. really want to argue that the gun ban reduced the murder rate?

Similarly for violent crime, from 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.'s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976.

Lott notes that other jurisdictions, including Chicago, England, Ireland, and Jamaica, also have seen violent crime rise after adopting strict gun control. He does not explicitly argue (as you might expect from the author of More Guns, Less Crime) that disarming law-abiding residents encourages crime, but he does show that D.C. will have a hard time constructing even a prima facie case in support of its gun laws' effectiveness.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|9.7.07 @ 12:38PM|#

They are trying to pull our liberty teeth people.

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington

The law effectively prohibits armed self-defense, which is hard to reconcile with "the right to keep and bear arms."

No, it's easy. Because the second amendment has nothing to do with defending yourself against intruders or highwaymen. It's about defending yourself against your own government. Unless you're making the argument that assembling and loading his rifle is too much of a burden on the minuteman.

Jennifer|9.7.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Episiarch|9.7.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Because the second amendment has nothing to do with defending yourself against intruders or highwaymen.

Ever read the Federalist Papers or other correspondence between the dudes who, you know, wrote the Constitution?

|9.7.07 @ 12:44PM|#

"Unless you're making the argument that assembling and loading his rifle is too much of a burden on the minuteman."

Your mistaking the minutemen for the less successful half-hourmen.

|9.7.07 @ 12:46PM|#

D.C. will have a hard time constructing even a prima facie case in support of its gun laws' effectiveness.

I don't find it too hard to imagine that the Supremes would find a constitutional right, but then claim only rational basis review applies. And then it's easy to sidestep inconvenient facts since reality doesn't matter, only whether a rational legislator could have believed the ban would lower crime.

Gahan|9.7.07 @ 12:47PM|#

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

--Thomas Jefferson

|9.7.07 @ 12:48PM|#

First, D.C. not only bans handgun ownership by anyone who isn't a current or former law enforcement officer;

Bad enough that active police get special treatment under the law (I suppose you could make the argument that the may have to act even when off-duty), but what's the difference between a former officer and any other private citizen?

|9.7.07 @ 12:51PM|#

While it disarms law-abiding citizens, criminals have little difficulty obtaining guns, to judge by the city's consistently high homicide rate.

I'd like to see some pro-gun arguments that do not involve neatly dividing all people into "criminals" and "law-abiding citzens".

That having been said, it is true that city gun bans are going to be pretty ineffective as long as people can easily purchase guns outside the city and bring them in. Any effective handgun ban would probably have to be national in scope.

|9.7.07 @ 12:52PM|#

|9.7.07 @ 12:54PM|#

Making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is the legislative equivalent of holding a woman down while someone else rapes her. Except that your average gang rapist, unlike your average gun-control fanatic, is at least too honest to tell others that his actions make society better and safer. If only DC lawmakers had a gang rapist's level of integrity, I daresay the city would be better off.

You don't have to support gun control legislation to find this analogy suspect. It's hard to imagine many cases in which a person who holds a woman down while someone rapes her does not intend harm to the woman. I believe most gun control advocates genuinely believe there efforts will make people safer.

Beyond that, there are significant numbers of people injured by accidents involving guns. I think there are probably cases as well where convenient access to guns resulted in intentional shootings that otherwise would not have happened. Bans on gun possession would likely reduce such harmful incidents. Holding down a rape victim, on the other hand, seems an unmitigated act of evil.

|9.7.07 @ 12:57PM|#

"""I'd like to see some pro-gun arguments that do not involve neatly dividing all people into "criminals" and "law-abiding citzens". """

Why would that be necessary? It's a valid division when discussing laws.

Gahan|9.7.07 @ 12:58PM|#

"Any effective handgun ban would probably have to be national in scope."

Just like our spectacularly effective nationwide drug ban.

|9.7.07 @ 1:01PM|#

Jennifer's on a roll with her second day of highly offensive and absurd analogies.

Are you jealous that she is stealing your thunder?

Jennifer's on a roll with her second day of highly offensive and absurd analogies.

2 down, 536 more to go to beat your streak, Dan.

Gahan|9.7.07 @ 1:03PM|#

While a gun ban might very well reduce marginal cases in which an otherwise normal law-abiding person snaps one day and kills someone because he happened to have a gun on hand, these cases account for a very small percentage of gun violence in the U.S. The vast majority of shootings in the U.S. are gang-related and thus not likely to be avoided through gun legislation.

|9.7.07 @ 1:04PM|#

If the DC city government truly believes guns make the city less safe, why do they issue hand-guns to thousands of men and women whom they then send out to wander around the streets?

If guns truly make things worse, then they should stop issuing them to policemen.

|9.7.07 @ 1:05PM|#

"Jennifer's on a roll with her second day of highly offensive and absurd analogies."

I think the rapist analogy is one of the least absurd arguments one can bring into a debate about gun control. How can anybody with a brain deny that a 100lb woman has no way of defending herself against a 300lb thug unless she has a gun in her pocket? If you take that gun away from that woman, you are holding her down while she is being raped.

|9.7.07 @ 1:06PM|#

That having been said, it is true that city gun bans are going to be pretty ineffective as long as people can easily purchase guns outside the city and bring them in.

Uh, dude, if you're a resident of Washington DC, it is illegal for you to go out of state to purchase a handgun.

In fact, purchasing a handgun out of state without having it sent through an licensed dealer in YOUR state is, in fact, a crime.

|9.7.07 @ 1:07PM|#

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Ben Franklin.

|9.7.07 @ 1:08PM|#

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

|9.7.07 @ 1:09PM|#

That having been said, it is true that city gun bans are going to be pretty ineffective as long as people can easily purchase guns outside the city and bring them in. Any effective handgun ban would probably have to be national in scope.

You mean like the one in Jamaica?

|9.7.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Despite the reasoning clause of the 2nd amendment. To whom that right belongs is perfectly clear. The people. "The people" is defined in the first three words of the preamble. "We the people".

|9.7.07 @ 1:12PM|#

Or the UK.

The UK handgun ban is so strict that their Olympic pistol team has to practice in another country.

Because, you know, nothing says slavering criminal mastermind quite like a competitor who's wielding a five-shot semiautomatic .22 pistol.

ed|9.7.07 @ 1:13PM|#

I can think of at least 200 items in my home that can kill someone, from the falling-over bookcase to the bottle of bleach to the big, sharp chef's knife. All of them are legal, and not one is mentioned in the Constitution. And if they were, pundits would argue endlessly over the exact meaning of the word "sharp". A little common sense goes so far, yet it is so rarely used in this debate.

|9.7.07 @ 1:15PM|#

|9.7.07 @ 1:17PM|#

Dan, nobody is talking about speeders when they talk about "criminals" in gun-control debates.

|9.7.07 @ 1:19PM|#

"""Because nobody follows every law and nobody breaks every law."""

What does Terence Hill have to do with it?

Jennifer|9.7.07 @ 1:19PM|#

Jennifer - Making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is the legislative equivalent of holding a woman down while someone else rapes her.

Parse - It's hard to imagine many cases in which a person who holds a woman down while someone rapes her does not intend harm to the woman. I believe most gun control advocates genuinely believe there efforts will make people safer.

If the effects are the same, your intentions really don't matter to the victim. The road to hell...

|9.7.07 @ 1:20PM|#

I think the rapist analogy is one of the least absurd arguments one can bring into a debate about gun control. How can anybody with a brain deny that a 100lb woman has no way of defending herself against a 300lb thug unless she has a gun in her pocket? If you take that gun away from that woman, you are holding her down while she is being raped.

So the 300lb thug is going to stand by and watch as the woman rummages around her purse to find her .22? And isn't it just as likely that he's going to have a gun himself since that would make it easier for him to perform his criminal deed?

But as another poster mentioned, the problem with the analogy is that gun-control advocates (believe it or not), are not actively trying to facilitate crime like the woman-hold-downer would be.

|9.7.07 @ 1:22PM|#

To paraphrase an old saw, Evolution made men, Samuel Colt made them equal.

|9.7.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Guns don't kill people. People kill people guns are just a tool to facilitate killing. We might as well ban knives, forks, broken glass, etc. all could be potential weapons to cause harms to others. The people have the right to bear arms and that's the bottom line. Of course there may be times when a person commits a crime using a weapon but why should a non-criminal have his right to be armed taken away from him because criminals sometimes use guns when committing crimes?

|9.7.07 @ 1:24PM|#

|9.7.07 @ 1:26PM|#

Exercising the right- Pittsburgh's Highland Park rapist shot
Channel 11 News | Oct. 11, 2002

According to Channel 11 News at 11, the Highland Park (Pittsburgh) rapist has been located in a hospital bed at Presbyterian University Hospital. His latest intended victim turned the tables on him, exercising her second amendment rights, shooting him several times.

Dan T. You make it so easy.

|9.7.07 @ 1:28PM|#

Dan,

Quoting what J sub D says above, "the effects are the same". If the government tells me that I can't put a roof on my house, they are not directly ruining my carpets. But the rain is going to come in.

But does that work both ways? The government may not shoot citizens but if they allow people to own guns and shoot them the effect is the same.

|9.7.07 @ 1:29PM|#

I bet you if you lifted the gun ban the first gun-related crime in the city would be held up as "SEE!! SEEE!!!! This wouldn't have happened if we'd banned guns!," and everyone would go back to the way they were, gun ban and all.

lunchstealer|9.7.07 @ 1:29PM|#

Think How High the Homicide Rate Would Have Been If We Hadn't Banned Guns

I'm just glad that Timothy's got his magic rock that repells tigers. It's so effective that even though I live 300 miles away from him, I never get attacked by tigers. In fact, I've only seen 10 or 15 tigers in the last decade, and they had to be locked up at the zoo to keep them from running away from Timothy's magic rock.

Dan, if guns are not useful defensive weapons, why would cops need them?

Tim Lambert|9.7.07 @ 1:33PM|#

Not only is Lott cherry picking his data, he's recycling his arguments. I debunked this in 2004.

As for his claims about Northern Ireland:

The Republic of Ireland banned and confiscated all handguns and all center fire rifles in 1972, but murder rates rose fivefold by 1974 and in the 20 years after the ban has averaged 114 percent higher than the pre-ban rate (never falling below at least 31 percent higher).

Do you think that Lott is completely ignorant about the recent history of Ireland or did he deliberately conceal it from his readers? In 1972 the Republic of Ireland did ban handguns and large calibre rifles. And the number of murders did increase from 10 in 1971 to 51 in 1974. What Lott failed to mention is the reason for the gun ban in Ireland was not to reduce homicides there (they only had 10 murders a year in a country of three million people for heaven's sake!), but to cut off the supply of guns to Northern Ireland. Lott also failed to mention is that the reason for the big increase in murder in 1974 was the terrorist bombings in Dublin and Monaghan which killed 33 people. It's as if he blamed the enormous increase in the homicide rate in New York City in 2001 on gun control there.

|9.7.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Dan,

That is the stupidest thing that I've ever heard. To restate your argument, the government may not run me over with a car either, but they allow people to own cars and if they run me over the effect is the same. Does that make sense to you?

The government doesn't allow people to rape other people, but it happens. Taking away a very effective means of protection only makes it easier for the rape to occur.

|9.7.07 @ 1:44PM|#

"Lott notes that other jurisdictions, including Chicago, England, Ireland, and Jamaica, also have seen violent crime rise after adopting strict gun control."

Its possible that legislation or even availability of firearms is less relevant to this debate than many people think. 'Culture' plays a big part.

England first adopted gun control in 1920 and in 1953 Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection. The UK still has nothing like the murder rate which scares away so many British Citizens from investing or travelling in the USA. The base figures for murders in the UK are still very low. Nevertheless, its undeniable that gun crime in the UK has increased dramatically (One statistic suggested it went up 35% in the last year year) but this is not due to legislation last year but cultural and reporting factors. The main victims and perpetrators, other than career criminals, seem to be drawn from very distinct teenage groups in semi-marginalised ethnic communities in particular urban settings, in an otherwise much more integrated urban society than the US seems to be ('integration and social cohesion are very nebulous concepts'). Long-term comparisons are also also interesting:

According to Joyce L Malcolm, Professor of history, at Bentley College, a study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were apparently seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. Guns are apparently not the traditional weapons of choice for English killers, who were not historically mainly 'intruders' or 'highwaymen'.

|9.7.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Dan,

That is the stupidest thing that I've ever heard. To restate your argument, the government may not run me over with a car either, but they allow people to own cars and if they run me over the effect is the same. Does that make sense to you?

No, it doesn't make sense. That's my point as it relates to Jennifer's original analogy.

The government doesn't allow people to rape other people, but it happens. Taking away a very effective means of protection only makes it easier for the rape to occur.

And I'm saying that allowing a very effective means of aggression also makes it easier to occur. And I'd bet the number of rapes where the aggressor uses a gun is many times higher than the number where the victim uses one as defense.

If the numbers were anywhere close to 50/50 then I'd tend to agree with you all. But as long as guns are used offensively much more than defensively it seems that allowing them tends to facilitate criminal acts much more so than banning them would prohibit defensive acts.

|9.7.07 @ 1:52PM|#

""If the numbers were anywhere close to 50/50 then I'd tend to agree with you all. But as long as guns are used offensively much more than defensively it seems that allowing them tends to facilitate criminal acts much more so than banning them would prohibit defensive acts."""

Are you including how many times an officer of the law uses a gun in defense?

|9.7.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Dan-

"And I'd bet the number of rapes where the aggressor uses a gun is many times higher than the number where the victim uses one as defense."

"But as long as guns are used offensively much more than defensively"

This all sounds like anecdotal bullshit to me.

|9.7.07 @ 1:54PM|#

And I didn't say fire, I said use. That would included an officer drawing his weapon.

Dan T. You still haven't responded to my post of September 7, 2007, 1:26pm. I guess she got her gun out in time, huh.

lunchstealer|9.7.07 @ 1:55PM|#

Dan, if guns are not useful defensive weapons, why would cops need them?

To compensate?

|9.7.07 @ 1:57PM|#

"...if guns are not useful defensive weapons, why would cops need them?"

To shoot my dog when they accidentally raid my house instead of the one down the street?

Jennifer|9.7.07 @ 1:57PM|#

And I'd bet the number of rapes where the aggressor uses a gun is many times higher than the number where the victim uses one as defense.

Especially in places like DC, where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to have guns.

Kap|9.7.07 @ 1:57PM|#

If the numbers were anywhere close to 50/50 then I'd tend to agree with you all. But as long as guns are used offensively much more than defensively...

The numbers are nowhere near 50/50...but not exactly in the manner you assume.

Roughly 30,000 firearms deaths per year happen in the US. Roughly 2/3rds are suicides, and a fraction of 1% are accidents. The remainder are homicides - typically 10-12k per year.

According to various studies - including ones conducted by the Department of Justice - firearms are used defensively 500,000 - 2,500,000 times per year in the US.

That's at a minimum a 40:1 ratio.

|9.7.07 @ 1:59PM|#

FWIW, DC's violent crime rate actually has dropped quite a bit in recent years.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

|9.7.07 @ 2:00PM|#

So the 300lb thug is going to stand by and watch as the woman rummages around her purse to find her .22? And isn't it just as likely that he's going to have a gun himself since that would make it easier for him to perform his criminal deed?

No undercurrents of sexism there...

Kap|9.7.07 @ 2:05PM|#

Also, most firearms homicides are criminals killing other criminals. See for example a recent post in Of Arms and the Law: typically 75-90% of murder victims - the victims - have extensive criminal records.

We do not have a gun problem in this country, we have a gang problem. The gang problem is a function of prohibition, just like it was in the '20s.

Addressing the gang problem enters the politics of prohibition, race, and the corrosive social effects of the welfare state. No modern politicians will go there. Much easier to talk about inanimate objects, and whether the presence or absence of a flash hider on the barrel of a rifle with profoundly change society.

|9.7.07 @ 2:06PM|#

I find it curious that the same folks who quote Jefferson on 'church and state' issues pretend he remained silent on guns.

|9.7.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Also, can someone explain to me how I'm made safer by removing my ability to defend myself, and putting that responsibility in the hands of a man with a gun who is nowhere near my vicinity when I'm victimized, and who probably barely passed his annual range qualifications?

|9.7.07 @ 2:09PM|#

|9.7.07 @ 2:11PM|#

On the woman/rapist issue, wouldn't an increased liklihood that the woman has a gun deter the rapist more than it may otherwise? Say if at present it is 3% likely that the woman is carrying a gun, that doesn't pose much risk to the rapist. But if 35% of women were to carry guns, the rapist would have to take his own fate into the equation when committing the act.

This goes for all violent crime in general. A larger population of guns in potential victims hands means that those who committ violent crime have lesser odds of succeeding than they otherwise would.
This is assuming a rational criminal, which I think is fair considering that those who are irrational criminals would probably committ the act irrespective of the gun ban.

|9.7.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Throughout history and in a whole lot of civilizations, the right to bear arms was limited to the elite and their enforcers.

We have Samuri sword-control legislation for all those wonderful ninja movies, because people adapted farm implements into weapons because they weren't allowed actual weapons.

Basically the right to bear arms is the primary indicator of full citizenship. Even if the gun control argument worked and actually reduced crime (when it would be an understatement to say that it has either no effect or even encourages crime), it doesn't really matter. Real citizens have the right to pack heat. Slaves, serfs, and peasants don't. And that is why they wrote the 2nd amendment.

|9.7.07 @ 2:19PM|#

|9.7.07 @ 2:22PM|#

mediageek,

Dan is looking out for our best interest, therefore sexism is acceptable (for the children, probably). Yer a gun-totin', tobaccer-chewin redneck, therefore sexism is not acceptable. Got it?

Hold on, I'm not the one who introduced the sexist notion that women are helpless victims unless they're armed.

Meanwhile it's men, who are more likely to be armed than women, who are the victims of most violent crime.

Go figure.

oh. Did I give the impression that gun ownership was the only explanatory variabile with respect to violent crime rates?

carrick|9.7.07 @ 2:24PM|#

If true, the US should have much less violent crime than other countries with strict gun control laws. But we don't.

Countries with the lowest rates of homicide include Japan (where no one is allowed to have gun) and Switzerland (where everyone is required to have a gun).

Violence in the US is cultural issue with only a remote connection to ownership of guns.

|9.7.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Yes Dan, lets totally ignore all other relevant factors but guns per 100000. Nothing about politics, the war on drugs, the breakdown of law and order in urban areas.

It's a complicated issue. Obviously there are places (like Somalia) with high gun ownership and very high crime and violence. There are also places like Switzerland, where everyone has a bleeding government mandated automatic rifle in the closet with a very low crime rate.

Britain had a very low murder rate before it began its gun control programs, while the US has always been a pretty violent place. Straight up comparisons between countries isn't going to make for good policy.

|9.7.07 @ 2:28PM|#

Violence in the US is cultural issue with only a remote connection to ownership of guns.

I agree it's a cultural issue but gun ownership is such an integrated part of our culture that I don't think you can call the connection "remote".

carrick|9.7.07 @ 2:29PM|#

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

One of my all time favorites.

robc|9.7.07 @ 2:29PM|#

If true, the US should have much less violent crime than other countries with strict gun control laws. But we don't.

Actually, we do. But first you have to adjust for effects do to societal differences and the WoD.

Hold on a sec, you said violent crime didnt you? IIRC, we have much lower violent crime rates than many countries with strict gun control laws, including the UK. They are just violent with their fists or something. No adjustments necessary.

carrick|9.7.07 @ 2:32PM|#

Gun ownership does not lead to violence.

People with violent personalities tend to be attracted to guns, and swords, and knives, and bone-crunching NFL highlight videos . . . .

Dan, you need to become better versed in the concepts of correlation and causation.

|9.7.07 @ 2:33PM|#

To clarify one thing, I draw a distinction between handguns and shotguns/rifles in the sense that I'm more in favor of a handgun ban but would not at all be in favor of one on rifles and shotguns.

I think a compromise between the two would work best - home defense is a legitmate concern and I understand shotguns work best for that purpose. Meanwhile, it's handguns that are most often used in crime because they are easily concealed. Too often in this debate the two categories of firearm are treated the same.

|9.7.07 @ 2:35PM|#

One wolf and two lambs gets the same outcome. Bush is proof. We don't need no stinkin' democracy 'round here.

carrick|9.7.07 @ 2:37PM|#

SELF defense is a legitmate concern and I understand shotguns work best for that purpose.

My wife carries a large purse, but not that large.

|9.7.07 @ 2:45PM|#

I have a Mosin Nagant, old old Russian rifle. Bolt action, pretty primitive and about 5 feet long. It's a big gun.

In WW1, russian troopers would cut the barrel off and jury rig a handle and use it as a sidearm. The recoil must have almost been enough to break a wrist, but anyways.

Point being, necessity is the mother of invention and criminals won't lack for concealable firearms if only rifles are legal.

Kap|9.7.07 @ 2:52PM|#

I have a Mosin Nagant

I'll see your Mosie and raise you my 1929 Nagant M1895 revolver.

I think every libertarian should own at least one ex-totalitarian firearm.

|9.7.07 @ 3:03PM|#

Kap, your post of September 7, 2007, 2:05pm was brilliant. I wish I'd posted it.

|9.7.07 @ 3:09PM|#

...home defense is a legitmate concern and I understand shotguns work best for that purpose.

How about, ...self defense outside the home is a legitmate concern and I understand handguns work best for that purpose.

Dan T. I'm no even trying.

make that "not even trying."

|9.7.07 @ 3:12PM|#

D.C. not only bans handgun ownership by anyone who isn't a current or former law enforcement officer; it also requires that long guns be kept locked or unloaded and disassembled, which makes using them against home invaders impractical.

I'd be very interested in seeing the numbers for how many retired officers excercise their privilege and own a handgun. I'm willing to bet that it's pretty high and, if so, that should tell you quite a bit about the reality of the situation.

robc|9.7.07 @ 3:14PM|#

I think every libertarian should own at least one ex-totalitarian firearm.

I took my CCDW (Concealed Carry of Deadly Weapon) shooting test with a borrowed Sig Sauer that was taken from the body of a nazi officer (I dont know more details, such as model, that was the only day I had that handgun in my possession). It had small swastikas carved into the handle at multiple spots. I didnt show it to the guy in my CCDW class that had small swastikas tattooed on his hand at multiple spots.

|9.7.07 @ 3:17PM|#

How about, ...self defense outside the home is a legitmate concern and I understand handguns work best for that purpose.

I'm not sure it's a legitimate concern. The risk you pose to others by being armed in public is out of proportion to the odds that you'll be attacked.

robc|9.7.07 @ 3:18PM|#

quick correction, I dont know if the handgun mentioned above was a sig sauer or just a sauer. My history of german/swiss firearms is limited.

carrick|9.7.07 @ 3:22PM|#

I'm not sure it's a legitimate concern. The risk you pose to others by being armed in public is out of proportion to the odds that you'll be attacked.

The only way it is a risk to the general public is if the person actually draws the gun and shoots. If you assume the person is carrying for self-defense, then he/she would only draw and shoot when he/she is attacked.

So there is no threat to the general public unsless he or she can't shoot straight.

robc|9.7.07 @ 3:23PM|#

The risk you pose to others by being armed in public

Zero.

is out of proportion to the odds that you'll be attacked.

Greater than zero.

Hmmm, I disagree.

---

Oh, and after some google searching and faulty memory searching, probably a Sauer 38H.

|9.7.07 @ 3:30PM|#

The only way it is a risk to the general public is if the person actually draws the gun and shoots. If you assume the person is carrying for self-defense, then he/she would only draw and shoot when he/she is attacked.

"Risk" refers to what might happen, and we can't assume that a person won't pull his gun for reasons other than self-defense, even if that's his true rationale for carrying the gun. Not to mention that the point where self-defense is justified is pretty subjective.

|9.7.07 @ 3:33PM|#

"""SELF defense is a legitmate concern and I understand shotguns work best for that purpose.

My wife carries a large purse, but not that large."""

Not to mention it's against the law for her to cut the shotgun down to fit in a purse.

robc|9.7.07 @ 3:34PM|#

Not to mention that the point where self-defense is justified is pretty subjective.

I cant speak for all 50 states + DC, but the KY law on self defense is very clear cut. We covered it in detail in my CCDW class. Unfortunately, I dont remember it all, but "subjective" would not be my word to describe it.

|9.7.07 @ 3:36PM|#

What Lott failed to mention is the reason for the gun ban in Ireland was not to reduce homicides there (they only had 10 murders a year in a country of three million people for heaven's sake!), but to cut off the supply of guns to Northern Ireland.

Well thank goodness they did. I remember vividly how the IRA shut down all its operations around that time because they couldn't get access to any more guns.

People who think that only the king's men have a right to carry a firearm have no concept of liberty or freedom. And by king's men, I mean law enforcement class.

carrick|9.7.07 @ 3:37PM|#

"Risk" refers to what might happen, and we can't assume that a person won't pull his gun for reasons other than self-defense, . . .

So no one is trustworthy? Everyone is another potential criminal just waiting for a moment of weakness or opportunity? This really is the gist of the argument for gun control -- you just can't trust the general public to be responsible with guns.

I disagree with you on this one. You can and must assume the a person won't pull a gun for reasons other than self-defense. Just like you can assume that the vast majority of the population won't do any harmful things at random.

Civil law is designed to handle the minority of people that do harm by accident or incompetence.

Criminal law is designed to handle the small minority of the people that do harm intentially.

The whole system assumes that the majority are trustworthy. So why are guns so different?

Mike H.|9.7.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Here you go, Dan. Enjoy.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

|9.7.07 @ 3:40PM|#

I cant speak for all 50 states + DC, but the KY law on self defense is very clear cut. We covered it in detail in my CCDW class. Unfortunately, I dont remember it all, but "subjective" would not be my word to describe it.

I'm not talking about the law, I'm saying that people in the heat of the moment are going to have different thresholds for when they consider themselves threatened.

carrick|9.7.07 @ 3:44PM|#

I'm not talking about the law, I'm saying that people in the heat of the moment are going to have different thresholds for when they consider themselves threatened.

Translation: People can't be educated and people can't be trusted.

|9.7.07 @ 3:51PM|#

I'm not sure it's a legitimate concern. The risk you pose to others by being armed in public is out of proportion to the odds that you'll be attacked.

Dan T. I live in fuckin' Detroit, Michigan! Look up the violent crime stats. Still not even breakin' a sweat.

But carrick, isn't the whole rationale for carrying a handgun in public that people can't be trusted? You're trying to have it both ways.

robc|9.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#

I'm not talking about the law

Yes you were.

Not to mention that the point where self-defense is justified is pretty subjective.

Justifiable is a legal term, at least in the KY law on self-defense. The word justifiable is used twice in the section on self-defense (KRS 503.050).

carrick|9.7.07 @ 3:54PM|#

Basic philosophical concepts for government:

* Some people can't be educated
* Some people can't be trusted

Concept 1) Trust that most people can be educated and trusted. Punish (civil or ciminal) the minority after they have shown (by causing harm) that they can't be educated or trusted.

Concept 2) Don't care that most people can be educated and trusted. Enact a series of "prior restraints" to prevent the minority from causing harm.

That's what we're arguing about here Dan.

robc|9.7.07 @ 3:54PM|#

the whole rationale for carrying a handgun in public that people can't be trusted?

No, the rationale is that anyone should be allowed to carry anything unless there is a damn good reason to prevent it.

The default mode is no restriction. Restrictions require rationales. Permission doesnt.

And that is the whole problem with your world view. You start from the model that we need reasonable permisssion from Mommy Government before we can do anything. Grow up.

|9.7.07 @ 3:58PM|#

The only time I have had to defend myself from a violent attack with intent to commit robbery was against a knife - with a knife. The point was that he did not expect me to be armed and able to resist at all.

No weapons = helpless victims.

carrick|9.7.07 @ 3:58PM|#

But carrick, isn't the whole rationale for carrying a handgun in public that people can't be trusted? You're trying to have it both ways.

See previous post, most people can be trusted, some cannot.

I am absolutely trying to have it both ways. I will trust you right up the point when you prove you can't be trusted.

Of course, I will also consider the probablities and ensure that I have some mitigation at hand if you do prove to be untrustworthy (this is called risk management).

|9.7.07 @ 4:02PM|#

Come on, carrick. You can't simultaneously tell me that you trust people and also that you have a need to carry a dangerous weapon on your person while in public.

Jennifer|9.7.07 @ 4:07PM|#

You can't simultaneously tell me that you trust people and also that you have a need to carry a dangerous weapon on your person while in public.

Makes sense unless someone like you has a vested interest in not understanding it, Dan. Most people are good, and can be trusted not to cause deliberate harm to others. A few people are not good, and can not be trusted thus. I trust the majority of people not to hurt me, even if they're allowed to carry guns, but it only takes a determined minority of one to do me harm.

carrick|9.7.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Come on, carrick. You can't simultaneously tell me that you trust people and also that you have a need to carry a dangerous weapon on your person while in public.

Gee I trust people, but I lock my house . . .

Gee I trust people, but I have an alarm on my car . . .

Gee I trust people, but carry collision insurance on my car . . .

Wow, my whole life is a contradiction. Thanks for pointing that out Dan.

Bagger|9.7.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Dan's had more than enough to eat today. Please refrain from feeding him more. Thanks.

-The Mgmt.

mith|9.7.07 @ 4:18PM|#

but what's the difference between a former officer and any other private citizen?

Former officers may know people who hold a grudge against them from when they were cops. And most former cops would still do something if a situation arose where the gun was needed. Plus, they've had extensive training on proper gun usage, so they're more likely to be effective.

|9.7.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Justifiable is a legal term, at least in the KY law on self-defense. The word justifiable is used twice in the section on self-defense (KRS 503.050).

robc, if the question of when self defense is justified is not a subjective one, why would the law in Kentucky be any different than anywhere else? The law of gravity is the same in all jurisdictions, because it describes an objective fact.

|9.7.07 @ 4:26PM|#

"""Plus, they've had extensive training on proper gun usage, so they're more likely to be effective."""

Extensive, that's funny.

If effectiveness is the issue, a kid brought up shooting handguns is usually better than a guys who's only experience is the academy and once a year at his job.

Think of it this way. Who would you rather have defending this nation. Someone with 15 years of experience shooting or someone with 2 months?

LibertyPlease|9.7.07 @ 4:30PM|#

Dan T.:

"Risk" refers to what might happen, and we can't assume that a person won't pull his gun for reasons other than self-defense, even if that's his true rationale for carrying the gun. Not to mention that the point where self-defense is justified is pretty subjective.

"If's" are not reason enough to repeal my civil rights. If it's anecdotes and speculation you'd like to deal in, then I carry very often. Coworkers and friends of mine carry often. Many, many of my neighbors here in Texas carry. If you spend anytime her in restaurants, coffee bars, movie theaters, etc, there are armed people around. And no problems result from them being armed. Probably fewer problems than result from the police being armed. My fellow carrying Texans' don't suffer from the frequent LEO affliction of meglomania which can be dangerous.

|9.7.07 @ 4:32PM|#

"""No weapons = helpless victims."""

Law enforcement agrees, that's why they carry guns.

robc|9.7.07 @ 4:34PM|#

parse,

Ky's law is different, but objective.

Are speed limits subjective or objective? They are objective, even though they differ on different roads. The legislature's choice of what to set it at may be subjective, but the law is objective. Enforcement may be subjective but the law is objective.

|9.7.07 @ 4:39PM|#

If accidents and mis-use is a reason to ban guns, cops shouldn't have them either. Sometimes they don't know the difference between a gun and a candy bar.

Former officers may know people who hold a grudge against them from when they were cops.

I suppose that cops have some extra grudges against them, but that hardly warrants restricting the ability for self-defense to ex-cops only.

And most former cops would still do something if a situation arose where the gun was needed.

I think you'd be surprised how often normal citizens would intervene in such situations if they had the ability.

Plus, they've had extensive training on proper gun usage, so they're more likely to be effective.

As aforementioned, extensive is hardly the term. However, would you then support otherwise retriction free gun laws if the only requirement was passing a handgun safety course?

|9.7.07 @ 4:40PM|#

Would more cops be dead if not for their firearms?

|9.7.07 @ 4:42PM|#

I think every libertarian should own at least one ex-totalitarian firearm.

Ha. I'm trying to find an AK-47 with hammer and sickle insignias on them. Or if I can't find one, I will get a modern one and engrave it with "This machine kills fascists" in cyrilic.

Plus, they've had extensive training on proper gun usage, so they're more likely to be effective

Effective in their own defense, yes. Ex-cops do not patrol. It's unlikely that if I'm getting robbed, an armed ex-cop will be walking nearby within shouting distance. It's also been shown in that courts that POLICE DO NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HELP YOU, EVEN IF YOUR LIFE IS IN DANGER. That right there, above all, is the biggest reason private citizens should be allowed to own one.

|9.7.07 @ 4:44PM|#

Making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is the legislative equivalent of holding a woman down while someone else rapes her with a non-gang-member passerby holding her down with the compassionate intent of keeping her from injuring herself by straining her arm muscles while hitting the attacker, or provoking the attacker to rape her rougher -- and with the bystander demanding payment from her afterwards for protective services rendered.

~~Except that your average gang rapist, unlike your average gun-control fanatic, is at least too honest to tell others that his actions make society better and safer.~~

A better analogy, Jennifer?

Another Phil|9.7.07 @ 4:44PM|#

Dan,

The probability of being attacked may be small, but the consequences of being attacked can be enormous. If you value your life, you should be free to defend it.

x,y|9.7.07 @ 4:57PM|#

Dear Dan T.,

Why not a global ban while we're at it?

Sincerely,

x,y

|9.7.07 @ 5:04PM|#

Would more cops be dead if not for their firearms?

I meant that sincerely.

Dan, have an answer?

Jennifer|9.7.07 @ 5:09PM|#

with a non-gang-member passerby holding her down with the compassionate intent of keeping her from injuring herself by straining her arm muscles while hitting the attacker, or provoking the attacker to rape her rougher -- and with the bystander demanding payment from her afterwards for protective services rendered. A better analogy, Jennifer?

No, a better analogy would be holding her down so the poor little rapist doesn't get hurt. After all, the only reason to prevent someone -- say, me -- from owning a gun is that you're worried about the safety of the people I might shoot.

|9.7.07 @ 5:19PM|#

robc, the original question was not whether Kentucky's law was objective, but whether justification for the use of force in self defense was objective. When various jurisdictions attempt to codify instances in which the use of force is justified, the come up with a variety of answers. This suggests that the question is, ultimately, subjective.

|9.7.07 @ 5:25PM|#

No, a better analogy would be holding her down so the poor little rapist doesn't get hurt. After all, the only reason to prevent someone -- say, me -- from owning a gun is that you're worried about the safety of the people I might shoot.

I think it's true that most people who favor gun control are worried about the safety of the people who might get shot. And they are convinced that "people who might get shot if eveyrone is allowed to bear arms" is a group that contains more innocent victims (of criminals or of accidental shootings) than guilty criminals. You can say that these gun control advocates are wrong, even that they are spectacularly wrong, but you can't convince me that any signficant number of them are motivated by the desire to see more innocents shot.

|9.7.07 @ 5:50PM|#

Jennifer -- the point of my sarcastic analogy is to show that liberals actually believe they're making you safer by preventing you from having guns. They don't want rapes and murders and whatnot, but have a different (i.e., wrong) idea about how to prevent them -- the same way that liberals like joe think that the way to help the poor is to rob productive members of society, thinking they're be no blowback (Craig pun intened).

Kap|9.7.07 @ 6:24PM|#

...the only reason to prevent someone -- say, me -- from owning a gun is that you're worried about the safety of the people I might shoot.

I really don't believe this is what motivates the anti-gun folk. Maybe on the surface level, and this is definitely what they will preach to you, but if you scratch deeper I think they have a more philosophical objection with the proles owning guns.

Being unarmed and thus helpless to solve your own problems renders you forever clinging to the skirt of the nanny state. They feel the same way about your guns as Norman Bates' mother felt about those dirty, dirty girls.

robc|9.7.07 @ 6:26PM|#

parse,

As I pointed out, justification is a legal term. The justification is objective, at least in KY.

What is the justification for driving 55 on the highway? Answer: Is the number on the sign greater than or equal to 55.
That is objective, even though different states put different numbers on their sign.

I will give you another example. Prior to July of 2006, I could use deadly force on an arsonist who was attempting to burn down my place of residence. The justification for shooting an arsonist was objective - Is he trying to burn down my residence?
After July 2006, the justification is - Is he trying to burn down my residence or another building that I own? Also an objective justification, but different from the previous one.

The legislatures reasoning for choosing just residences or all buildings I own is subjective, but the legal justification for capping the fuckers ass isnt.

|9.7.07 @ 8:38PM|#

But carrick, isn't the whole rationale for carrying a handgun in public that people can't be trusted? You're trying to have it both ways.

Most people can be trusted. A few cannot.

Consider this:

1) Most people will never lose their houses to fire.

2) Everyone should have a fire extinguisher in their home (or at least the number of the fire department in easy reach).

Is this a contradiction, having it both ways?

|9.7.07 @ 10:12PM|#

Gun control started in this country in the slave codes. It is ironic to see Jesse Jackson and Adrian Fenty on the bully pulpit to disarm black folks and keep them victims. Leaders like them are house slaves on the liberal jackass plantation, scared to death about what would happen with freedom and responsibility for all.

|9.7.07 @ 11:54PM|#

Plus, they've had extensive training on proper gun usage, so they're more likely to be effective.

I'm just going to call shenanigans on that one. The only cops who are competent with a sidearm are the ones who undertake training and/or competitive shooting of their own volition.

I've seen cops shoot. I've regularly out-shot cops in various pistol matches, and I'm not that great of a shot.

Most cops qualify once, maybe twice a year on courses of fire that are laughably easy to pass.

|9.8.07 @ 1:55AM|#

""I'm just going to call shenanigans on that one.""

I'm getting my broom.

|9.8.07 @ 4:21PM|#

Marion Berry.

I rest my case.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements