OPINION & EDITORIAL
Gun control unfair to law-abiding citizens
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Guest Columnist:
- Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
- Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
- Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
- Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
- Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Where have all the children gone? (January 29, 2004)
- Terrorists' actions unpunishable (September 13, 2001)
- Hamas must be part of discussion (November 30, 2007)
- Shall make no law ... (January 24, 2006)
- Potential pitfalls abound for Plan B (November 29, 2006)
by Guest Columnist
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
At the end of the day, more gun control becomes a method of social control, not an anti-crime policy. If we look at crime stats, they support both pro-gun and anti-gun positions, and thus neither of them. Pro-gun states — Vermont, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Utah — and other countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Israel, have relatively low violent crime and crime overall. Anti-gun states like Wisconsin and Hawaii, as well as the countries of Japan and Ireland, also have relatively low violent crime and crime overall. The same goes for high violent crime and crime overall.
If more gun control doesn't mitigate crime, then what does it do? Look no further than any authoritarian state or society in history. Look no further than our own Southern backyard under the Jim Crow laws — laws that in many states still had a significant presence only 50 years ago. What was one of the first things these laws did to Southern blacks? They took their guns away. In a society where even the authorities were complacent with lynching and other hate crimes, whom else could a law-abiding citizen turn to for defense against a frequently racist government and society than himself? As in many other instances of the past, gun control was used to oppress people, to remove checks and balances on despicable government policies and, in short, to do what it implies: control.
To say the United States will never have circumstances in the future where citizens will have to fend for themselves against an oppressive government or society, or in a situation of utter chaos, seems rather arrogant and presupposing. Additionally, the challenge that tens of millions of gun owners pose to an authoritarian government remains a powerful political liability for any overtly authoritarian regime, especially if we take into account that many members of the U.S. military and the U.S. State Guard bear arms. It remains doubtful that the U.S. Armed Forces would gladly turn against their own comrades in arms.
So anti-gun supporters, keep in mind that further disarming a populace also means further controlling a populace, with no apparent benefit to fighting crime. Nor does it even prevent last week's horrible events if existing federal gun control laws had been adequately enforced. After all, Virginia Tech murderer Cho Seung-Hui purchased both his handguns illegally.
His purchases occurred after state Special Justice Paul M. Barnett ruled in December 2005 that Seung-Hui presented "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." This ruling should have barred Seung-Hui from purchasing any gun as per the requirements of the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act since it "adjudicated [him] mentally defective" long before he purchased his handgun murder weapons and after mandatory federal background checks administered in February and March 2007. Tragically, due to ambiguities and unfunded mandates in Virginia state law, this ruling never entered the federal background check database, the same database that would have stopped Seung-Hui from making his gun purchases had it contained the above information. The lesson here: If any smart gun laws come out of this tragedy at the federal or state level, they should serve to better enforce existing federal gun control laws, not to punish tens of millions of responsible and law-abiding gun owners by unnecessarily adding more controls.
If you don't believe me when I say many gun owners follow the law, just look at the numbers. According to a survey administered by the Harvard School of Public Health, there were 57 million adult gun owners in 2004. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 338,587 instances of firearms related crime in 2004. Do the math and we'll find that, in 2004, at most 0.59 percent of gun owners committed a crime with their firearms. Additionally, we'll find that at least 99.41 percent of gun owners in 2004 were law-abiding citizens. Run the same analysis on every year for the past 20 and you'll get roughly the same results. In any given year, a super-super-majority of gun owners used their firearms in a responsible and lawful manner.
So why should we unnecessarily control so many people to prevent crimes they will never commit? If doing so will not prevent crime, then why do it? Control for the sake of control remains the only reason why.
David Lapidus (lapidus@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in economics, math and history and a member of the Associated Students of Madison Student Services Finance Committee.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 7:09am):
HEY MORON, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!
Now go back to eating your delicious squirrel meat. Yum, yum.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 7:13am):
Genocide and mass murder both proceed more easily in a "gun free zone".
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:22am):
7:09am - Actually, there was an editorial in the paper Friday that argued the 2nd Amendment was outdated and that the world would be a better place if guns were gone. That is why David wrote the piece. It doesn't matter if there is currently no legislation pending to take away guns, people all around the country have a political agenda that includes taking away guns from law-abiding citizens.
It would also serve you well if you responded to his arguments without shouting that he is a moron. Then again, I don't really see where one can argue with the substance of this column anyway.
~Mike Hahn
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:25am):
I have since joined the NRA and am looking into getting a gun. God bless America and its constitution.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:26am):
I am for gun control, but i think that the problem is more cultural than anything. The USA has a culture of killing and shooting. You only have to walk around and talk to how people feel about war and death penalty or watch a movie even. I don't know how this can be changed.
Your analysis of freedom is not very deep. I mean, yes it means controlling the citizens. Have you heard of negative freedom? Unless you are an anarchist you would agree that laws that take away power or control from citizens are not necessarily bad and so the decision of whether a law should be enacted or not needs to argued by other means.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:40am):
When mass killers meet armed resistance
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html
ps. It turns out differently than in "gun free" zones.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:42am):
Hey 7:09, tell that to the people of New Orleans who had their guns confiscated by the authorities, unlawfully as it turned out but still.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:50am):
"Now go back to eating your delicious squirrel meat. Yum, yum."
Spoken like a true elitist scumbag. You a trustifarian by any chance? Stick your silver spoon in your mouth and STFU.
My mother's family had only squirrel and rabbit to eat when she was young - there was no money for store bought meat. A small bowl of sauerkraut was a big treat.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:52am):
Mike Hahn, the call of the GOP base for years has been, "they want to take your guns away, vote Republicans to stop them." Just because some college block-head writes an article trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, just means he's not proficient in constitutional law.
Mike, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY.
Could you now go back to trying to re-join church and state, please.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:59am):
"NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY"
But they do, just pay attention to what they write and what they say.
Of course I din't see how there would be any way to stop guns at the border, what with the lack of success in stopping drugs or millions of invading Mexicans.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 10:12am):
Hey 9:42am, ask the people of New Orleans who have obtained an unprecedented number of concealed weapons permits how the crime rate is there.
Concealed weapons don't save lives or cost lives, they just sell guns, and anyone who argues otherwise is a chump.
David Lapidus (April 24, 2007 @ 10:22am):
"I am for gun control, but i think that the problem is more cultural than anything. The USA has a culture of killing and shooting. You only have to walk around and talk to how people feel about war and death penalty or watch a movie even. I don't know how this can be changed."
I am undecided on this. Especially, when we look at DOJ statistics showing violent crime existed at significantly lower per capita levels in the past century.
"Your analysis of freedom is not very deep. I mean, yes it means controlling the citizens. Have you heard of negative freedom? Unless you are an anarchist you would agree that laws that take away power or control from citizens are not necessarily bad and so the decision of whether a law should be enacted or not needs to argued by other means."
I am not an anarchist.
Laws that impede on freedom -- pretty much the majority of laws in existence, as you stated, and I totally agree -- should only control people for a very good reason. Current federal gun control laws already do a decent job at making sure irresponsible people can't purchase guns without unnecessarily infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners.
My argument states, for this reason, that any further federal gun control laws make absolutely no sense from a crime reducing stand-point. Instead, and for no other reason, further federal gun control only makes sense from the standpoint of wanting a more authoritarian government and/or society.
Sorry if my op-ed did not make this clear enough, my mistake if it didn't.
-David Lapidus
David Lapidus (April 24, 2007 @ 10:29am):
"Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 10:12am):
Hey 9:42am, ask the people of New Orleans who have obtained an unprecedented number of concealed weapons permits how the crime rate is there.
Concealed weapons don't save lives or cost lives, they just sell guns, and anyone who argues otherwise is a chump."
Ask the people of Vermont, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Utah while you're at it... Who have obtained an unprecedented number of concealed weapons permits as well. How low's there crime rate? Very low.
Stats don't point to a clear conclusion on the crime debate over further gun control. So quit trying.
-David Lapidus
David Lapidus (April 24, 2007 @ 10:36am):
"NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY."
As long as these organizations and many others exist, with many donors and followers, I will disagree with you here:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
http://www.csgv.org/
http://www.vpc.org/
http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 12:04pm):
"Ask the people of Vermont, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Utah..."
Wouldn't it be nice if every state was as pale as Salt Lake City?
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 12:14pm):
This argument always goes to the extremes, take all the guns away or everyone should be able to carry a concealed weapon. The fact is that 80% of US citizens don't like either of those options. Complete background checks and waiting periods should be mandatory and if you have a violent crime in your history, you don't get a gun. Stricter punishment for those that either use their own guns to commit crimes or allow their gun to be used to commit a crime need to be in place. If your gun is stolen and if you don't report it and it's used in a crime you get punished as well. If your kid gets a hold of your gun and shoots someone, you get punished as well. Proponents of allowing guns everywhere often make the argument that had students been allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus one of them may have been able to stop the rampage. My question to them is what if 5 people stepped out out into the hallway to stop the rampage and instead of ending the rampage mistakenly shot & killed one of the other would be heroes? should that person be punished? I say yes if your going to accept the responsibility of carrying a weapon then you need to accept the consequences of making that decision.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 12:40pm):
There are 1500 accidental gun deaths per year in the United States. That seems like a lot of "accidents" for people who claim to be responsible.
David Lapidus (April 24, 2007 @ 12:59pm):
""Ask the people of Vermont, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Utah..."
Wouldn't it be nice if every state was as pale as Salt Lake City?"
Teh? I'm not sure if you're trolling or making a serious point.
"This argument always goes to the extremes, take all the guns away or everyone should be able to carry a concealed weapon. The fact is that 80% of US citizens don't like either of those options. Complete background checks and waiting periods should be mandatory and if you have a violent crime in your history, you don't get a gun. Stricter punishment for those that either use their own guns to commit crimes or allow their gun to be used to commit a crime need to be in place. If your gun is stolen and if you don't report it and it's used in a crime you get punished as well. If your kid gets a hold of your gun and shoots someone, you get punished as well. Proponents of allowing guns everywhere often make the argument that had students been allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus one of them may have been able to stop the rampage. My question to them is what if 5 people stepped out out into the hallway to stop the rampage and instead of ending the rampage mistakenly shot & killed one of the other would be heroes? should that person be punished? I say yes if your going to accept the responsibility of carrying a weapon then you need to accept the consequences of making that decision."
I agree with most of what you said here.
Except your 80% number is incorrect. If you want I can post poll data showing why.
"There are 1500 accidental gun deaths per year in the United States. That seems like a lot of "accidents" for people who claim to be responsible."
Assuming your 1500 number is correct...
1500/57000000 that means roughly .002% of gun owners a year have a fatal gun accident.
What about the other 99.21% of gun owners who don't commit a crime or have a fatal accident with a firearm every year?
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 1:05pm):
Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they break their first law. How are we to know if that first act will be mass murder? I'd rather err on the side of caution and LIFE.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 2:55pm):
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. And when they're stupid or drunk or just plain pissed off, people with guns kill people a lot more easily than do people without guns.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 2:56pm):
There are 4000 accidental pool deaths per year in the United States.
BAN POOLS!!!
Quick - before more die needlessly!
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 3:11pm):
David Lapidus is a partisan hack!
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 4:04pm):
"My question to them is what if 5 people stepped out out into the hallway to stop the rampage and instead of ending the rampage mistakenly shot & killed one of the other would be heroes? should that person be punished?"
I agree. Taking on a personal responsibility to defend your self is a responsibility. Being irresponsible should have consequences. But you should not force someone who is willing to take the courses, apply for the permits, and go through the legal hoops the ability to defend themselves.
"There are 1500 accidental gun deaths per year in the United States. That seems like a lot of "accidents" for people who claim to be responsible."
Here are some other numbers for you to chew on:
Motor Vehical Accidents: 44,757
Falls: 17,229
Exposure to inanimate mechanical forces: 2,658
Accidental drowning and submersion: 3,306
Other accidental threats to breathing: 5,579
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames: 3,369
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances: 19,457
Complications of medical and surgical care and sequelae: 2,855
Compared to other accidental ways to die, guns seem pretty damn safe to me...
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 5:26pm):
Ashok Kumar would enjoy taking the guns away. Then he'd sell them so he could buy that hottie at the bar another drink.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 5:47pm):
"David Lapidus is a partisan hack!"
Anyone who takes the opposite side of this argument is also a partisan hack then. Whats good for the goose....
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 6:11pm):
Re: list of dangerous things
It sounds like guns are as safe as nerf balls. Suddenly, I'm not so afraid of them. Now I have the courage to go rob someone, but only if they have an NRA sticker on their F250. I wouldn't want to rob someone who could possibly "expose me to inanimate mechanical forces."
David Lapidus (April 24, 2007 @ 6:26pm):
"Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they break their first law. How are we to know if that first act will be mass murder? I'd rather err on the side of caution and LIFE"
Adequate gun controls, or cautions as you're labeling them here, already exist at the federal level for gun ownership. Going beyond them means to alternatively forgo caution in the face of unnecessary authoritarian governmental and societal practices.
BTW if you don't have the same attitude towards cars and alcohol ("ban them all to err on the side of caution and LIFE"), as you display here for guns, your argument appears extremely contradictionary.
"David Lapidus is a partisan hack!"
Yup, I only follow the party line:
http://studentsforafairwisconsin.blogspot.com/
"Yesterday, David Lapidus, a respected, outspoken conservative student at UW-Madison, wrote an entry on his blog, Letters in Bottles, describing why he is voting 'No' on November 7. You may remember David from Students for a Fair Wisconsin's 'Voices for No' Campaign at UW-Madison earlier this semester.
He writes that he supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples:"
"I agree. Taking on a personal responsibility to defend your self is a responsibility. Being irresponsible should have consequences. But you should not force someone who is willing to take the courses, apply for the permits, and go through the legal hoops the ability to defend themselves."
Yup. Good post.
All right... Gonna go do some homework. I won't have another op-ed for a while, so I just wanted to say: it has been a pleasure debating you anonymous critics! I look forward to our discussions in the future.
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 7:47pm):
"It sounds like guns are as safe as nerf balls. Suddenly, I'm not so afraid of them. Now I have the courage to go rob someone, but only if they have an NRA sticker on their F250. I wouldn't want to rob someone who could possibly "expose me to inanimate mechanical forces."
Chances are, you attempt the robbery in the scenario described above, you'll wind up with a chest full of 200 grain led projectiles. And it wouldn't be an accident. However, chances are, the safe NRA guy in the F250 won't accidently shoot an innocent bystander, as he is safe and responsible with his firearm, and his choice to use lethal force to defend himself.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 12:28pm):
The gun control advocates are like a witch hunting lynch mob, whipped up by the press and emotional people suffering from post traumatic stress after these tragedies.They live in fear of something they don`t understand. They blame all the woes of the world on guns rather than looking at the real issue of social injustice and mans inhumanity to man. Before guns were invented, people still killed each other using swords, broadaxes, spears, bows and arrows, poison and whatever else they could think of. In one battle alone, Hannibals army killed 20,000 Roman soldiers. Not one gun was present. A samurai warrior could wreak havoc with his sword in a village where he could kill at will.
Tens of thousands of people are killed and maimed in motor vehicle "accidents" each year and yet there is no anguished calls for better motor vehicle control. Motor vehicles are used each year to commit murders and bank robberies and sexual assaults and more and yet just about anyone can get a drivers license. No criminal background checks, no federal licensing and registration. I have a greater fear of being killed on our roads than of being shot.And cars are also ruining the environment and oil production has fueled wars.
If we instead focus our energy and time and money on trying to create a better world for all, these problems will disappear. This can start with spreading the wealth of the nation more evenly amongst the people. There is only so much wealth out there and it is wrong that much of it is hoarded by the few, making the rest suffer in poverty and despair. The Virginia tech shooter talked about the rich but nobody will listen.
So the gun control advocates want to remove the tools a killer uses without fixing the real problem, forever dooming us to more violence and unrest as killers will just find another way, like bombs or poison. And by taking away guns from good people, will doom us even further to acts by those bad people who will still have guns.
The anti-gun crowd believe that they are morally superior to gun owners and know whats best for us all. This fact alone shows disrespect for others opinions and rights and is undemocratic to say the least.
frank Sullivan (October 12, 2007 @ 9:43am):
I could not have said it better than the comment from Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 12:28pm). And must also add the following fact: Department of Justice statistics, approximately 87 percent of violent crime occurs outside the home.
I only recently started to sometimes take my handgun with me when I drive. I keep it in he trunk, unloaded and in a approved case. Also, for a long time now, I have kept a pocket knife and and fishing knife in my center console of my car for protection. Recently here in Wisconsin, two men went to a atm machine and withdrew money, they soon noticed they were being followed by a van that eventually cut them off and demanded their money. The two victims tried to speed away only to be fired upon. One man died and the other is in the hospital in critical condition. When this happened is when I started to take my pistol with me (in the trunk unloaded). Yesterday, I was driving down a two lane road and was behind a full size pickup who suddenly braked and pull to the right. I thought he was stopping so I went around him. This person then sped up and cut me off, rolled down his window and started calling me all sorts of names. I told him to leave me alone and pulled away. He again sped around me and cut me off, this time throwing trash at me and still cursing. I did not have a cell phone so I could not call the police. In defense, I said to him "leave me alone I have a gun" and pulled off again and started to head for the local police station because he was still following me. Well apparently he called the police and I was pulled over, handcuffed and taken to the station, booked, fingerprinted and now I have to report to the district attorneys office to see if and what I will be charged with. I was charged with disorderly conduct for telling this other motorist that I had a gun and charged with Concealed carry for the knives not the pistol in trunk. After speaking to my attorney, he tells me that even a baseball bat in the front part of your car is illegal and considered concealed carry. The police are stripping us of our defenses. we cannot even have a baseball bat in our vehicles for protection. I used to have the utmost respect for our police offices but now I am weary of them. The crooks are not stupid, they love the fact that we cannot defend ourselves. Untill my government can assure me that no criminals have guns I should have the right to have one myself. i would love a society free of guns. On the average it takes a officer 6 minutes to report to a crime. For those 6 minutes you have to defend yourself. I do not understand the logic of anti gun/weapon laws. It is almost as the police are crooks as well. I understand that the police would have a safer job if they knew every driver they passed did not have any weapons in their car but that will never happen. the crooks will have guns. I used to belive that if I saw a officer under attack and the attacker getting the better of them that I would try to help the officer. Or if when dropping my son offto school, if there was a killer loose in the school that I may be able to save a few young lives if not at least keep the shooter distracted so he cannot kill. NOT ANY MORE ! I even asked the officer who arrested me if they would want me to help if they were being killed on the side of the road and she said "it's not your responsibility" so for now one the police are on their own as far as I am concerned. I also do not trust the police anymore. I am in my 40's and have a clean police record untill now. And all I was doing was trying to get away from a madman who was assaulting me with his truck. On reflection, I should not have told this crazy guy that I had a gun abd to leave me alone, because he could of had one on his passenger seat and started shooing at me. But what was I to do ? he kept cutting me off the road. I also used to give donations to the different police associations, not any more. this is a very crazy and dangerous world we live in and it is only getting worse.
Anonymous (October 13, 2007 @ 1:28pm):
^(frank Sullivan ) Conceal and carry is meant for people not to know you packing, and i disagree with you telling that person you have a gun. I know WI doesnt have CC but even if you have a gun in your house, you dont let someone whos in your house know, same concept. If their timing is wrong, believe me they'll know...
If you carry it legally in your trunk (unloaded/no ammo in case) you should keep a loaded mag in your pocket to decrease access time. And it is legal (heck you can bring a loaded mag into a court house legally, not to say you'll not get heckled)
Good luck with the situation
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
