As if there were a need for more posts on this subject...! I'll pile on anyway, but hopefully a redeeming feature of this post will be that I will propose some potential solutions to gun violence (in addition to just stricter gun regulations) in another post on "How to Reduce Crime."
Note: These arguments are labelled as "conservative" and "liberal"; however, the author realizes this oversimplifies things. Many conservatives may hold opinions labelled here as "liberal", and vice versa.
I. THE "CONSERVATIVE" VIEWPOINT ON GUN CONTROL:
Guns don't kill, people kill. In a way, this is supported by the Chicago crime statistics, in that 11% of murders were stabbings, which (it is supposed) would likely increase somewhat if guns were not available, depending on the circumstances of the crime. Also (here's the racist-sounding argument), only 5.6% of murders are committed by white people, even though a larger percentage of whites own guns than Blacks or Hispanics. So the gun ownership itself is not what causes gun crime. Sure, "crazy" people shouldn't have guns--but law-abiding folks with guns shouldn't be punished because of the "crazy" people.
The Second Amendment expressly defends the right of the people to "keep and bear arms". It is often cited as being included for the purpose of allowing a country's citizens to overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical. It was no doubt inspired by a recollection of the "Glorious Revolution" in England in which King James--who attempted to disarm many Protestants--was deposed by William of Orange, a Dutch King who was invited into England and took power in a near-bloodless coup.
The Second Amendment has been disputed throughout its history, but it has been consistently held up under attack as a safeguard to gun ownership. Gun control laws are often seen as a "slippery slope" where many view such laws as the first step in outlawing guns and ultimately "taking citizens' guns away."
Existing gun control regulations don't work (Exhibit A: Chicago). Often, they are not even effectively enforced. Why pile onto something that has already been shown "not to work"? Besides, every time there's a government initiative to tighten gun control laws, this only increases paranoia and energizes people to flock to gun shows and buy even more guns and ammo. On top of that, criminals who already have unregistered guns probably won't even be aware of the new gun laws, much less be affected by them.
Guns are an essential means of protection. We can't depend on the police, they only investigate crimes after they've already been committed. Look at all the situations where violence could have been avoided if the victim had carried a gun. Based on (their) statistics, concealed carry is an effective deterrent, and such holders are typically good citizens.
The solution to incidents like Sandy Hook is to fight fire with fire--i.e., place armed guards at all schools, arm the kindergarten teachers and principal, have a militia of armed citizens at the ready. This will make any potential offender think twice. (NRA's solution.)
"Talk of gun control legislation is just a sideshow to distract from other, more important issues. Nothing's going to come from it, just like nothing came of Columbine or Virginia Tech. A useless, cynical and futile legislative effort."
There is a much darker "argument"--that probes the depths of our own apathy and prejudice. We are all susceptible to the underlying attitude. It is never written or spoken, and yet it may be the most common reason for apathy on gun control. It goes like this: Let the criminals kill each other off; they're not in my neighborhood, so I'll turn a blind eye. It's a cruel attitude for which we all may pay someday.
The most emotionally-charged and vociferous arguments against stricter gun control laws are made by the most extreme gun proponents. For the sake of completeness, these "arguments" should be included, since they often dominate the rhetoric. (For example, asking why Obama thinks his children need security protection while he rejects putting armed guards in schools.) These arguments are based on emotion, paranoia and prejudice rather than logic. Typically, they reflect one or more of the following attitudes:
---Conspiracy Theory: i.e., "Sandy Hook was a staged event enacted as part of a government conspiracy to justify taking away our guns."
---Prejudice: "Obama is a Socialist, a Communist, a Nazi, an Islamic Jihadist, a Non-citizen, a (N-word) who wants to wage a race war all wrapped into one. I'm against whatever he's for!"
---Flag Waving: "I'm a true patriot. If they take my gun away, America is finished. Over my dead body!"
---Prepping for Armageddon: Attempts at gun control reform are attempts by the "Beast" or "New World Order (or _______) to disarm us and take over America! It's every man for himself. I'll be ready!
---Religious Defense: Having and using guns for my protection is my God-given, Christian right! (This is perhaps the most preposterous argument of all. Perhaps it is meant to evoke the image of a religious crusader who's facing a threat that his sword will be taken away.)
More moderate conservatives don't cater to these last arguments, but the NRA nevertheless fans these emotions with its aggressive rhetoric.
II. THE "LIBERAL" VIEWPOINT ON GUN CONTROL:
It's technically true that guns don't kill, people do. However, Liberals find such arguments hollow. After all, guns make it much easier and more tempting for criminals to shoot people or commit suicide, whether premeditated or more often, on an impulse or in a moment of passion. A criminal with a grudge who possesses a weapon that makes murder quick, easy and convenient and easier to slip away is analogous to a thief who has the key to your house. Oh, but "keys don't rob you, people do!"
While conservatives are always saying "don't let crazy people have guns", this is an impossible proposition. That guy in your neighborhood that nobody likes--is he a harmless crank or a psychotic killer? How do you prove this either way, until he kills someone? Statistically speaking, a certain percentage of handgun owners (some would say a disproportionate share) are mentally unstable. It's ludicrous to think we can just imprison all the eccentric folks due to the possibility they might purchase a gun and kill somebody. And of course, the NRA would naturally be the first to oppose any psychological test as a condition of gun ownership.
Liberals don't buy the argument that guns protect people from their government. Hitler greatly relaxed the strict gun laws in Germany rather than tightening them--obviously for his own ends. If the Jews had had the opportunity to use guns to defend themselves, a national emergency would have been declared, they would have been branded as Communist conspirators, and they would have quickly been slaughtered by Hitler's military, SS and Gestapo in a very brief and bloody war. This would have actually saved Hitler a lot of "trouble". (After all, entire countries like Poland and France were overpowered in a few days by Hitler, how could the Jews possibly have stopped him?)
If a government is not potentially capable of overpowering and/or disarming its own citizens, it is also not capable of maintaining order or defending itself against a foreign power, and is thus doomed. A government won't be overthrown by angry cranks with guns, it will be overthrown as a consequence of its institutions having crumbled (i.e., from lack of funds and corruption) and its legitimacy with its own citizens and citizen soldiers having been lost.
Many foreign governments of industrialized countries have either outlawed guns or have very strict gun control laws, and their democracies appear to be at least as stable and impervious to extremism and despotism as our own. Moreover--and importantly--the incidence of gun violence is almost totally nonexistent compared to the U.S. Conversely, countries without such laws--and with the toxic combination of ignorance, poverty and unrestricted movement of guns--are typically violent, chaotic, and susceptible to wanton violence and genocide by gangs, warlords, terrorists and drug cartels. Historical analysis of crime in these same countries prior to the proliferation of guns shows there were far fewer violent deaths, whether by guns or any other means.
Our founding fathers who passed the Second Amendment did not anticipate the asymmetrical advantage of assault weapons. A paranoid kook with a semi-automatic in his house is not the same thing as a well-regulated militia, and the concept of democracy becomes a farce if one person with a machine gun can overpower 100 of his fellow citizens who have only handguns or slingshots. If members of the Whiskey rebellion (that Washington crushed) had had a stash of the most deadly weapons available at the time, this country may have descended into anarchy. There is only one use of an assault weapon, and it's not hunting or self-defense--therefore, such weapons have no place in the hands of most citizens. While some owners of such weapons are merely collectors, many others are believed to be "preppers", survivalists, conspiracy theorists, criminals, members of drug cartels, religious or political fanatics, or people with some type of undiagnosed mental disorder or personality disorder.
Gun ownership greatly increases the likelihood of a "successful" suicide by gunshot, which is the second leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 53% of all suicides. 2/3 of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. 70% of suicides took less than 1 hr between the decision to commit suicide and its accomplishment. 90% of people who actually survive a suicide attempt do not repeat the attempt, which supports the fact that most suicides are impulsive acts resulting from an immediate but temporary crisis or stressor. Statistics show a far greater risk of suicide to members of the household of a gun owner, especially where the gun is not unloaded and securely locked up. The ironic conclusion is that you may be more likely to die from a gunshot wound if you own a gun than if you don't own a gun. And this doesn't even take into account accidental shooting deaths.
Gun control laws admittedly don't prevent all murders, just as traffic laws do not prevent all traffic fatalities. This does not mean we shouldn't enact what reasonable laws we can in order to reduce the number of deaths. While it's true that a portion of guns used in violent crime--typically in situations where the assailant is unknown--are committed using unregistered guns, the majority of homicides still do not fall into this category, at least for handguns.
It's true that significant number of gun crimes--especially where the assailant is unknown--are committed by people whose guns are not legally registered and/or an illegal transfer has taken place and/or the serial number on the gun has been filed off. This is actually the strongest argument for banning assault weapons. A certain percentage of legal, registered guns always falls into the hands of criminals due to straw purchases...it's a foregone conclusion. If assault weapons are allowed to proliferate, the situation will get much, much worse than it already is. And assault weapons shootings won't be mostly limited to ghettos and domestic assaults, either. It will affect all of us.
The NRA is arguably the most powerful lobbying force on Capital Hill, and they are well funded by gun owners and gun manufacturers. They spent over $3 million on lobbying while gun control advocates spent $200,000. They do not represent mainstream American opinions or attitudes. It's at least partly about greed and manipulation by an industry of death that has spun out of control.
Conservatives point out that existing gun control laws are ineffective and are not even being properly enforced now. However, liberals would point out that the NRA itself has been responsible for blocking effective legislation as well as its enforcement at every turn, so this charge is seen as extremely cynical.
Statistics compiled by conservatives purportedly show a lower incidence of gun violence in states with concealed carry laws, but upon closer examination, there is little evidence to suggest that concealed carry laws either increase or decrease gun crime.
The argument that gun violence could have been prevented if the victim had just possessed a gun...is similar to the argument that all our problems would be solved if we all just had winning lottery tickets...or to the argument that if all the good guys participated in gun training and were quicker in a duel, the bad guys would never shoot them in the back.
The solution is not more guns. Placing armed guards at all schools like Sandy Hook, or arming the kindergarten teachers and principal, or having a militia of armed citizens at the ready is NOT the solution. Contrary to what the NRA contends, this will not deter a potential offender, since these people typically are not in their right mind in the first place, and plan to end their own lives anyway, and also possess the element of surprise to their advantage. Not to mention, this is an impractical, costly "solution" that further endangers the students by introducing guns into the schools and that also turns America into a virtual police state.
If the senseless slaughtering of dozens of innocent children doesn't wake us up, what will?
III. AUTHOR'S VIEWPOINT
I am not a gun enthusiast, and I admittedly lean towards the liberal viewpoint--I would not even have a problem if all handguns were outlawed, except for security personnel...of course, this is not realistic. I also acknowledge that a few of the conservative arguments do have validity, but I am nevertheless solidly in favor of stricter gun control laws. At the same time, it would be wise to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment, once and for all. After all, lawmakers have been debating its meaning and relevance to our times ever since it was passed. Perhaps we need another amendment clarifying that it is shall be legal for citizens to own weapons of self-defense or hunting, and clarifying what characteristics of a weapon would characterize it as such, or alternatively, as a "weapon of force multiplication", and thus a prohibited weapon to be used only by the military. Sadly, I don't know if this would actually quell the storm of controversy or whether it would simply stir the pot even more.
We already have nearly 300 millions guns in circulation in the U.S. A certain percentage of all gun types is bound to fall into the wrong hands. For this reason, I agree with the liberal viewpoint that we really do not want to let assault weapons proliferate in the same way as other guns, or the situation will get much, much worse. Outlawing assault weapons should not be controversial--we already outlawed them from 1994 to 2004; we just made the mistake of allowing this law to expire. The expiration provision was undoubtedly bought and paid for by the gun lobby.
Tougher gun control laws are necessary, even if they reduce total gun deaths by only 10%--that's still 860 fewer homicides and 1940 fewer suicides. Not to mention an even greater reduction in gun-related injuries and a corresponding reduction in the staggering emotional and economic costs associated with gun violence. Some of the conservative arguments illuminate the limitations of gun control laws, and I believe additional things will need to be done to solve the problem of gun violence--and crime--in general.
The author believes these homicide statistics (mostly for Chicago) provide some key insight into how to combat gun crime. (The author suggests some solutions in his upcoming post "How to Reduce Crime.")
---70% of murders take place between 7pm and 5am
---30%+ of homicides are related to gang altercations
---93% of offenders are male, 60% between the ages of 17-25
---88% of offenders had a prior arrest history; meaning recidivist offenders are responsible for the majority of crimes
---The majority of murder weapons by unknown assailants are "straw purchases" with filed-off serial numbers and are not properly registered by the person committing the murder. People who sell those guns to them without a background check etc. are not currently held liable, because they can say "I lost my gun" or "It was stolen".
---Whites account for only 5.3% of all murders, even though they own more handguns than either Blacks or Hispanics. (Facts like this fuel prejudice, but my purpose is rather to draw a correlation between gun violence, lack of education and poverty.)
---Chicago has one of the highest rates of suicides, and it has risen again this year, with people who are 15-24 yrs old most at risk
Note: These arguments are labelled as "conservative" and "liberal"; however, the author realizes this oversimplifies things. Many conservatives may hold opinions labelled here as "liberal", and vice versa.
I. THE "CONSERVATIVE" VIEWPOINT ON GUN CONTROL:
Guns don't kill, people kill. In a way, this is supported by the Chicago crime statistics, in that 11% of murders were stabbings, which (it is supposed) would likely increase somewhat if guns were not available, depending on the circumstances of the crime. Also (here's the racist-sounding argument), only 5.6% of murders are committed by white people, even though a larger percentage of whites own guns than Blacks or Hispanics. So the gun ownership itself is not what causes gun crime. Sure, "crazy" people shouldn't have guns--but law-abiding folks with guns shouldn't be punished because of the "crazy" people.
The Second Amendment expressly defends the right of the people to "keep and bear arms". It is often cited as being included for the purpose of allowing a country's citizens to overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical. It was no doubt inspired by a recollection of the "Glorious Revolution" in England in which King James--who attempted to disarm many Protestants--was deposed by William of Orange, a Dutch King who was invited into England and took power in a near-bloodless coup.
The Second Amendment has been disputed throughout its history, but it has been consistently held up under attack as a safeguard to gun ownership. Gun control laws are often seen as a "slippery slope" where many view such laws as the first step in outlawing guns and ultimately "taking citizens' guns away."
Existing gun control regulations don't work (Exhibit A: Chicago). Often, they are not even effectively enforced. Why pile onto something that has already been shown "not to work"? Besides, every time there's a government initiative to tighten gun control laws, this only increases paranoia and energizes people to flock to gun shows and buy even more guns and ammo. On top of that, criminals who already have unregistered guns probably won't even be aware of the new gun laws, much less be affected by them.
Guns are an essential means of protection. We can't depend on the police, they only investigate crimes after they've already been committed. Look at all the situations where violence could have been avoided if the victim had carried a gun. Based on (their) statistics, concealed carry is an effective deterrent, and such holders are typically good citizens.
The solution to incidents like Sandy Hook is to fight fire with fire--i.e., place armed guards at all schools, arm the kindergarten teachers and principal, have a militia of armed citizens at the ready. This will make any potential offender think twice. (NRA's solution.)
"Talk of gun control legislation is just a sideshow to distract from other, more important issues. Nothing's going to come from it, just like nothing came of Columbine or Virginia Tech. A useless, cynical and futile legislative effort."
There is a much darker "argument"--that probes the depths of our own apathy and prejudice. We are all susceptible to the underlying attitude. It is never written or spoken, and yet it may be the most common reason for apathy on gun control. It goes like this: Let the criminals kill each other off; they're not in my neighborhood, so I'll turn a blind eye. It's a cruel attitude for which we all may pay someday.
The most emotionally-charged and vociferous arguments against stricter gun control laws are made by the most extreme gun proponents. For the sake of completeness, these "arguments" should be included, since they often dominate the rhetoric. (For example, asking why Obama thinks his children need security protection while he rejects putting armed guards in schools.) These arguments are based on emotion, paranoia and prejudice rather than logic. Typically, they reflect one or more of the following attitudes:
---Conspiracy Theory: i.e., "Sandy Hook was a staged event enacted as part of a government conspiracy to justify taking away our guns."
---Prejudice: "Obama is a Socialist, a Communist, a Nazi, an Islamic Jihadist, a Non-citizen, a (N-word) who wants to wage a race war all wrapped into one. I'm against whatever he's for!"
---Flag Waving: "I'm a true patriot. If they take my gun away, America is finished. Over my dead body!"
---Prepping for Armageddon: Attempts at gun control reform are attempts by the "Beast" or "New World Order (or _______) to disarm us and take over America! It's every man for himself. I'll be ready!
---Religious Defense: Having and using guns for my protection is my God-given, Christian right! (This is perhaps the most preposterous argument of all. Perhaps it is meant to evoke the image of a religious crusader who's facing a threat that his sword will be taken away.)
More moderate conservatives don't cater to these last arguments, but the NRA nevertheless fans these emotions with its aggressive rhetoric.
II. THE "LIBERAL" VIEWPOINT ON GUN CONTROL:
It's technically true that guns don't kill, people do. However, Liberals find such arguments hollow. After all, guns make it much easier and more tempting for criminals to shoot people or commit suicide, whether premeditated or more often, on an impulse or in a moment of passion. A criminal with a grudge who possesses a weapon that makes murder quick, easy and convenient and easier to slip away is analogous to a thief who has the key to your house. Oh, but "keys don't rob you, people do!"
While conservatives are always saying "don't let crazy people have guns", this is an impossible proposition. That guy in your neighborhood that nobody likes--is he a harmless crank or a psychotic killer? How do you prove this either way, until he kills someone? Statistically speaking, a certain percentage of handgun owners (some would say a disproportionate share) are mentally unstable. It's ludicrous to think we can just imprison all the eccentric folks due to the possibility they might purchase a gun and kill somebody. And of course, the NRA would naturally be the first to oppose any psychological test as a condition of gun ownership.
Liberals don't buy the argument that guns protect people from their government. Hitler greatly relaxed the strict gun laws in Germany rather than tightening them--obviously for his own ends. If the Jews had had the opportunity to use guns to defend themselves, a national emergency would have been declared, they would have been branded as Communist conspirators, and they would have quickly been slaughtered by Hitler's military, SS and Gestapo in a very brief and bloody war. This would have actually saved Hitler a lot of "trouble". (After all, entire countries like Poland and France were overpowered in a few days by Hitler, how could the Jews possibly have stopped him?)
If a government is not potentially capable of overpowering and/or disarming its own citizens, it is also not capable of maintaining order or defending itself against a foreign power, and is thus doomed. A government won't be overthrown by angry cranks with guns, it will be overthrown as a consequence of its institutions having crumbled (i.e., from lack of funds and corruption) and its legitimacy with its own citizens and citizen soldiers having been lost.
Many foreign governments of industrialized countries have either outlawed guns or have very strict gun control laws, and their democracies appear to be at least as stable and impervious to extremism and despotism as our own. Moreover--and importantly--the incidence of gun violence is almost totally nonexistent compared to the U.S. Conversely, countries without such laws--and with the toxic combination of ignorance, poverty and unrestricted movement of guns--are typically violent, chaotic, and susceptible to wanton violence and genocide by gangs, warlords, terrorists and drug cartels. Historical analysis of crime in these same countries prior to the proliferation of guns shows there were far fewer violent deaths, whether by guns or any other means.
Our founding fathers who passed the Second Amendment did not anticipate the asymmetrical advantage of assault weapons. A paranoid kook with a semi-automatic in his house is not the same thing as a well-regulated militia, and the concept of democracy becomes a farce if one person with a machine gun can overpower 100 of his fellow citizens who have only handguns or slingshots. If members of the Whiskey rebellion (that Washington crushed) had had a stash of the most deadly weapons available at the time, this country may have descended into anarchy. There is only one use of an assault weapon, and it's not hunting or self-defense--therefore, such weapons have no place in the hands of most citizens. While some owners of such weapons are merely collectors, many others are believed to be "preppers", survivalists, conspiracy theorists, criminals, members of drug cartels, religious or political fanatics, or people with some type of undiagnosed mental disorder or personality disorder.
Gun ownership greatly increases the likelihood of a "successful" suicide by gunshot, which is the second leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 53% of all suicides. 2/3 of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. 70% of suicides took less than 1 hr between the decision to commit suicide and its accomplishment. 90% of people who actually survive a suicide attempt do not repeat the attempt, which supports the fact that most suicides are impulsive acts resulting from an immediate but temporary crisis or stressor. Statistics show a far greater risk of suicide to members of the household of a gun owner, especially where the gun is not unloaded and securely locked up. The ironic conclusion is that you may be more likely to die from a gunshot wound if you own a gun than if you don't own a gun. And this doesn't even take into account accidental shooting deaths.
Gun control laws admittedly don't prevent all murders, just as traffic laws do not prevent all traffic fatalities. This does not mean we shouldn't enact what reasonable laws we can in order to reduce the number of deaths. While it's true that a portion of guns used in violent crime--typically in situations where the assailant is unknown--are committed using unregistered guns, the majority of homicides still do not fall into this category, at least for handguns.
It's true that significant number of gun crimes--especially where the assailant is unknown--are committed by people whose guns are not legally registered and/or an illegal transfer has taken place and/or the serial number on the gun has been filed off. This is actually the strongest argument for banning assault weapons. A certain percentage of legal, registered guns always falls into the hands of criminals due to straw purchases...it's a foregone conclusion. If assault weapons are allowed to proliferate, the situation will get much, much worse than it already is. And assault weapons shootings won't be mostly limited to ghettos and domestic assaults, either. It will affect all of us.
The NRA is arguably the most powerful lobbying force on Capital Hill, and they are well funded by gun owners and gun manufacturers. They spent over $3 million on lobbying while gun control advocates spent $200,000. They do not represent mainstream American opinions or attitudes. It's at least partly about greed and manipulation by an industry of death that has spun out of control.
Conservatives point out that existing gun control laws are ineffective and are not even being properly enforced now. However, liberals would point out that the NRA itself has been responsible for blocking effective legislation as well as its enforcement at every turn, so this charge is seen as extremely cynical.
Statistics compiled by conservatives purportedly show a lower incidence of gun violence in states with concealed carry laws, but upon closer examination, there is little evidence to suggest that concealed carry laws either increase or decrease gun crime.
The argument that gun violence could have been prevented if the victim had just possessed a gun...is similar to the argument that all our problems would be solved if we all just had winning lottery tickets...or to the argument that if all the good guys participated in gun training and were quicker in a duel, the bad guys would never shoot them in the back.
The solution is not more guns. Placing armed guards at all schools like Sandy Hook, or arming the kindergarten teachers and principal, or having a militia of armed citizens at the ready is NOT the solution. Contrary to what the NRA contends, this will not deter a potential offender, since these people typically are not in their right mind in the first place, and plan to end their own lives anyway, and also possess the element of surprise to their advantage. Not to mention, this is an impractical, costly "solution" that further endangers the students by introducing guns into the schools and that also turns America into a virtual police state.
If the senseless slaughtering of dozens of innocent children doesn't wake us up, what will?
III. AUTHOR'S VIEWPOINT
I am not a gun enthusiast, and I admittedly lean towards the liberal viewpoint--I would not even have a problem if all handguns were outlawed, except for security personnel...of course, this is not realistic. I also acknowledge that a few of the conservative arguments do have validity, but I am nevertheless solidly in favor of stricter gun control laws. At the same time, it would be wise to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment, once and for all. After all, lawmakers have been debating its meaning and relevance to our times ever since it was passed. Perhaps we need another amendment clarifying that it is shall be legal for citizens to own weapons of self-defense or hunting, and clarifying what characteristics of a weapon would characterize it as such, or alternatively, as a "weapon of force multiplication", and thus a prohibited weapon to be used only by the military. Sadly, I don't know if this would actually quell the storm of controversy or whether it would simply stir the pot even more.
We already have nearly 300 millions guns in circulation in the U.S. A certain percentage of all gun types is bound to fall into the wrong hands. For this reason, I agree with the liberal viewpoint that we really do not want to let assault weapons proliferate in the same way as other guns, or the situation will get much, much worse. Outlawing assault weapons should not be controversial--we already outlawed them from 1994 to 2004; we just made the mistake of allowing this law to expire. The expiration provision was undoubtedly bought and paid for by the gun lobby.
Tougher gun control laws are necessary, even if they reduce total gun deaths by only 10%--that's still 860 fewer homicides and 1940 fewer suicides. Not to mention an even greater reduction in gun-related injuries and a corresponding reduction in the staggering emotional and economic costs associated with gun violence. Some of the conservative arguments illuminate the limitations of gun control laws, and I believe additional things will need to be done to solve the problem of gun violence--and crime--in general.
The author believes these homicide statistics (mostly for Chicago) provide some key insight into how to combat gun crime. (The author suggests some solutions in his upcoming post "How to Reduce Crime.")
---70% of murders take place between 7pm and 5am
---30%+ of homicides are related to gang altercations
---93% of offenders are male, 60% between the ages of 17-25
---88% of offenders had a prior arrest history; meaning recidivist offenders are responsible for the majority of crimes
---The majority of murder weapons by unknown assailants are "straw purchases" with filed-off serial numbers and are not properly registered by the person committing the murder. People who sell those guns to them without a background check etc. are not currently held liable, because they can say "I lost my gun" or "It was stolen".
---Whites account for only 5.3% of all murders, even though they own more handguns than either Blacks or Hispanics. (Facts like this fuel prejudice, but my purpose is rather to draw a correlation between gun violence, lack of education and poverty.)
---Chicago has one of the highest rates of suicides, and it has risen again this year, with people who are 15-24 yrs old most at risk
No comments:
Post a Comment