The Naked Gun

© Dale Franks, 1999

I do not own a gun. I probably won't buy a gun in the near future, and I certainly won't buy one because of any fear about the hideous Y2K Problem.

All the same, I find it interesting that there seems to be a concerted effort to blame inanimate objects for the violence in the US. Guns do not leap of their own accord into the hands of felons. They do not exert some twisted form of mind control that turns otherwise normal persons into psychotics. They are simply hunks of metal.

Yet, we are constantly barraged with rhetoric about how "guns are responsible" for the horrible violence in American society. We are constantly told that if we can just get rid of the guns we will all be safer.

These arguments sound attractive. On the surface, it seems like such a logical proposition: If we can just ban guns, then there will be less violence.

Unfortunately, when one actually studies this issue, it becomes apparent that access to guns appears to have little to do with crime rates. Scholarly research tends to indicate just the opposite is true. Honest proponents of gun control laws should think very carefully about some real-world questions that contradict their beliefs, and provide answers to those questions, a few of which appear below.

In the US, comprehensive gun control laws in places such as Washington DC, New York, Boston, etc. have not reduced gun-related violence. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred, with localities such as Washington DC having extraordinarily high rates of gun-related crime. Washington DC is, by the way, a city in which ownership of any type of firearm is illegal outside of the law enforcement community. If gun control laws are effective, then why haven't they reduced crime in those localities that have the most severe gun control laws?

The common counter-argument to this is that criminals can obtain guns easily in neighboring jurisdictions and that is why the gun control laws in DC are ineffective. But that argument ignores the fact that crime rates in such neighboring jurisdictions like Virginia and Maryland are far lower than Washington DC. If criminals in Maryland and Virginia have such easy access to guns, then why aren't crime rates in VA and MD high as well?

In Great Britain, the population has essentially been disarmed. Yet, the most recent crime data indicates that the average British citizen is nearly twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime than the average American citizen. For example, In Great Britain there are approximately 20 violent assaults per 1,000 people, while in the US, there are 8.8 per 1,000. While the US has a higher murder rate, the British murder rate is rising quickly. If guns are the problem, then why is one so much more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Britain than in the US?

The rate of gun ownership has been relatively stable in the United States since 1950. Since 1960, the rate of violent crime in the US has tripled. If access to guns is the main problem, then why has crime risen so sharply over the past 40 years while the rate of gun ownership (hence access to guns) has remained stable?

There are several nations with a rate of gun ownership comparable to that of the US, including Switzerland, Finland, and Israel. (In Switzerland, the rate of gun ownership is astronomically high, because all able-bodied males between 18 and 50 are required to join the Army reserve, and are required to keep their military weapons stored in their homes.) In each of these countries, the rate of violent crime is far lower than in the US, and the murder rates are even lower. If access to guns is the problem, then why do other countries with similar rates of gun ownership have so much lower rates of violent crime?

A survey of the FACTS indicates that gun control simply is not the answer to solving our problem with violence. The idea of gun control, like so many of the animating political ideas of our day, sound pleasing until one learns the truth. Unfortunately, it appears that we are living in a time when far too many of our fellow citizens prefer to believe in a comforting lie, rather than an unpleasant truth.

I urge each of you, no matter what your political persuasion, to think a second time about what you believe, and to judge it not by how good it makes you feel, but by how it accords with the facts. In the long run, a devotion to the truth will serve us far better than a devotion to any political ideology.

Top