Addressing America's murder rate
I have seen it written far too many times: The claim that America's (and by that, I mean the United States of America) murder rate is directly related to, if not a function of, our high rate of firearm ownership.
To be sure, our gun murder rate is quite high, as is our overall murder rate. This, along with our high rate of firearms ownership, is enough for many people to believe that our non-prohibitive gun laws are the cause of that high murder rate.
Of course, reality rarely lends itself so readily to rushed judgments like that. Let me substitute another thing for gun ownership in there, and I will show you what I mean.
America has a higher rate of light truck ownership (pickups, SUVs, vans, minivans) than any other country. America also has a higher rate of murder than many other countries. Thus, we should support prohibition and confiscation of light trucks, with a few exceptions for people involved in law enforcement or that can demonstrate need.
Doesn't that sound silly? It certainly does to me... it leaves me wondering what the connection between light trucks and murder would be. It would appear to be quite obvious that the apparent correlation between the two (rate of murder and rate of light truck ownership) is coincidental. There is no obvious link between them, and without a rather detailed explanation of how the two are related, no one should believe that the "solution" of banning light trucks makes any sense at all.
If we go back to the gun ownership rate vs. murder rate question, can anyone say that the connection is clear? If you said 'yes,' please allow me to cite a few more data:
Isn't it silly to claim that the UK's low murder rate is a function of their strict gun control, when they had a very low murder rate long before that gun control was invoked? The relative murder rate in New York City and London has remained relatively constant for more than a century, a trend that started before the UK's current hysteria about guns. (And while the murder rate in the US continues to decline, it is skyrocketing in the UK. If things continue as they are going now, the UK will surpass the US in murder rate in the near future.)
It is a politically incorrect thing even to notice, but countries that are ethnically or culturally diverse tend to have high rates of murder. The problems in Eastern Europe and Northern Ireland to that effect are obvious, and they should be in the US as well. I am convinced that much of the murder we're seeing in the US now is the lingering legacy of the abomination of slavery, and in the institutionalized racism that we still have not managed to quash (although no one would dispute that much progress has been made).
Like it or not, there are no easy fixes for America's high rate of murder. Some people say it's all about easily-available guns, but it is patently obvious that it's not. Some other anti-gun people are more candid, saying that strong gun control (such as a total ban on handguns) would not instantly stop crime, but would be "a step in the right direction" or something similar.
A step that does not address the root problem of why people so often choose to murder other people is not a step in the right direction. Quite the opposite, in fact-- it is a step in a very wrong direction, since it seeks to blame objects for the actions of people, not people themselves. People don't wish to kill other people because they have guns. Criminals have guns because they want to victimize people.
Even if you could cast a magic spell that made all guns instantly disappear, you would still have all of those people that want to kill. And when humans have wanted to kill, they have always found a way to do so, no matter how much anyone tries to regulate the things they use to kill.
In the short term, we have to incarcerate the people that prove, by their actions, that they think it is okay to commit murder and otherwise victimize others.
In the longer term, we have to learn why a select few people turn to crime, and what can be done to change circumstances so that people don't so often choose a life of victimizing others.
Certainly, at no point in this process should be support any form of gun control-- because such measures reduce or eliminate the ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals, while having no effect on the criminals.
To be sure, our gun murder rate is quite high, as is our overall murder rate. This, along with our high rate of firearms ownership, is enough for many people to believe that our non-prohibitive gun laws are the cause of that high murder rate.
Of course, reality rarely lends itself so readily to rushed judgments like that. Let me substitute another thing for gun ownership in there, and I will show you what I mean.
America has a higher rate of light truck ownership (pickups, SUVs, vans, minivans) than any other country. America also has a higher rate of murder than many other countries. Thus, we should support prohibition and confiscation of light trucks, with a few exceptions for people involved in law enforcement or that can demonstrate need.
Doesn't that sound silly? It certainly does to me... it leaves me wondering what the connection between light trucks and murder would be. It would appear to be quite obvious that the apparent correlation between the two (rate of murder and rate of light truck ownership) is coincidental. There is no obvious link between them, and without a rather detailed explanation of how the two are related, no one should believe that the "solution" of banning light trucks makes any sense at all.
If we go back to the gun ownership rate vs. murder rate question, can anyone say that the connection is clear? If you said 'yes,' please allow me to cite a few more data:
- The non-firearm murder rate in the US is higher than in those countries people are always comparing the U.S. to (England, Australia, Japan, et cetera). Did the availability of guns in the U.S. somehow cause a rise in murders that are done with matches, poison, knives, baseball bats, ice picks, hammers, shovels, et cetera? Even if every murder that was committed with a gun were erased from history, our murder rate still would be higher than in these countries.
- Mexico, our southern neighbor, has a murder rate more than twice that of the United States, yet it has very restrictive gun controls. Estonia, Philippines, Brazil, Taiwan, and Northern Ireland also have higher rates of murder than the US. If the murder rate in the US is caused by our high rate of firearm ownership, doesn't that then suggest that this is true in all of those other countries-- even though they don't share America's"permissive" gun laws?
- Different racial groups commit murder at vastly differing rates in the US. The supply of crime guns (which are primarily stolen from lawful owners) is the same regardless of the race of the criminal seeking the gun. If our rate of crime is a result of gun availability, why does 12.7% of our population commit 55% of the gun murders (this is from US government numbers)?
Isn't it silly to claim that the UK's low murder rate is a function of their strict gun control, when they had a very low murder rate long before that gun control was invoked? The relative murder rate in New York City and London has remained relatively constant for more than a century, a trend that started before the UK's current hysteria about guns. (And while the murder rate in the US continues to decline, it is skyrocketing in the UK. If things continue as they are going now, the UK will surpass the US in murder rate in the near future.)
It is a politically incorrect thing even to notice, but countries that are ethnically or culturally diverse tend to have high rates of murder. The problems in Eastern Europe and Northern Ireland to that effect are obvious, and they should be in the US as well. I am convinced that much of the murder we're seeing in the US now is the lingering legacy of the abomination of slavery, and in the institutionalized racism that we still have not managed to quash (although no one would dispute that much progress has been made).
Like it or not, there are no easy fixes for America's high rate of murder. Some people say it's all about easily-available guns, but it is patently obvious that it's not. Some other anti-gun people are more candid, saying that strong gun control (such as a total ban on handguns) would not instantly stop crime, but would be "a step in the right direction" or something similar.
A step that does not address the root problem of why people so often choose to murder other people is not a step in the right direction. Quite the opposite, in fact-- it is a step in a very wrong direction, since it seeks to blame objects for the actions of people, not people themselves. People don't wish to kill other people because they have guns. Criminals have guns because they want to victimize people.
Even if you could cast a magic spell that made all guns instantly disappear, you would still have all of those people that want to kill. And when humans have wanted to kill, they have always found a way to do so, no matter how much anyone tries to regulate the things they use to kill.
In the short term, we have to incarcerate the people that prove, by their actions, that they think it is okay to commit murder and otherwise victimize others.
In the longer term, we have to learn why a select few people turn to crime, and what can be done to change circumstances so that people don't so often choose a life of victimizing others.
Certainly, at no point in this process should be support any form of gun control-- because such measures reduce or eliminate the ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals, while having no effect on the criminals.
posted by Porcupine Nine at 5:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home