Guns do not cause crime, but do make crime easier

On Dec. 16, 2010, a woman walked up to my daughter’s car and shot her five times with a .44 magnum revolver. Despite efforts to save Amy, the damage was too great and she died the following day.

As you may imagine, my perspective on columns such as Ben Compton’s “Relationship between guns and crime” (Frontiersman, March 18) strikes closer to home than it might have a few months ago. I feel compelled to respond as the mother of a wonderful young woman who loved life, was kind to everyone and did no more wrong than sit in her car in the parking lot at her work. I frame these comments in her memory as well as the memory of that young girl who was murdered in Arizona because she wanted to learn more about our democracy.

First of all, Mr. Compton assumes that “gun control” means “banning guns.” We have guns in our home. My husband was a hunter for many years, enjoys target shooting and even built some muzzleloaders when he was into re-enacting the fur trade. So, I am not arguing for banning guns, which serve some useful purposes and provide recreation for some people. Further, I recognize the need for police officers to have ways of protecting themselves and the rest of us.

Of course, guns do not cause crime. They do, however, make crime easier. People have always been capable of extreme violence; however, even the Mongol hoards could not potentially kill 33 people in the 15 seconds it would have taken Jared Loughner to empty the magazine of his Glock 19. Instead, he could not only fire at his target, but also injure or kill 19 others. Controlling the kinds of weapons available might have saved some lives and injuries in Arizona.

As Mr. Compton points out, one problem is that there are many ways to access guns illegally and certainly criminals know those ways. However, Jared Loughner and my daughter’s killer purchased their firearms legally. Further, in light of the New York investigators’ “sting” in Arizona, perhaps compliance with even the laws that exist are not effective. As we recall, Mayor Bloomberg sent investigators to a Phoenix gun show to purchase firearms. According to reports, they told the seller that they probably would not pass background checks, but were sold semi-automatic guns anyway. We may question Bloomberg’s tactics, but the fact remains that we don’t always even know who will use weapons to commit crimes.

Another of Mr. Compton’s quotes suggests that control advocates seek only to ban assault weapons. He goes on to imply that his opponents would then use the “ploy” of reinterpreting the definition of assault weapon. If a Glock 19 with 33 rounds of ammunition that can fire its magazine in the time it would take to sing “Happy Birthday” isn’t intended to assault, what is it intended to do? For hunting? For target shooting? And what about limiting magazine capacities? “Is the anti-gun crowd saying it’s willing to accept 15 victims, but, by gosh, more than that is unacceptable?” I suspect the family of 9-year-old Christina Taylor-Green might suggest that she might be alive if Loughner had fewer bullets to spray into the crowd.

Does banning guns make communities safer? Would controlling guns help? Some of the initiatives of local police agencies have worked to decrease crime. Certainly, controlling firearms is not a magic solution to crime. However, the National Institute of Justice reports “people between the ages of 15 and 24 are most likely to be targeted by gun violence. From 1976-2005, 77 percent of homicide victims ages 15-17 died from gun-related injuries.” This report goes on to note, “From 1990 to 2005, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims were killed by guns.” Again, these crimes may have been committed anyway. But guns were fast, easy and available.

Crime is a huge issue in the United States. Though Nationmaster.com reports that the U.S. is 24th in murders per capita of 62 countries listed, it surges to eighth of 32 in the firearm homicide rate, just slightly behind Mexico. Guns are readily available and easy to use. As for the argument that guns are for self-protection, I submit that my daughter was ambushed, as were the people in Tucson. Even if my daughter had been armed, she would not have had time to respond to the attack. However, if her murderer had attacked with her fists, a knife or a barbecue fork, Amy could have merely left her window rolled up, put the car in drive and left the scene.

As a society, we seem inconsistent in our approach to safety. When one man got through airport security with a potential bomb in his shoe, we made shoe control rules. Now, my 90-year-old mother has to take off her shoes when she flies. The horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001, have transformed travel so that cancer survivors have to undergo pat downs to ensure that their scars do not contain dangerous weapons.

I suggest that those who support any and all gun purchases help find ways that protect all of us from the folks who decide to kill others. What is the responsibility of rabid gun rights supporters to diminish the opportunity for people such as my daughter’s murderer to use firearms to fulfill their crazy motives? I have always been taught that along with rights come responsibilities. It is not only up to the police to protect us; we must work together to diminish the conditions and the means that lead to all violence, including that which uses firearms.

My daughter’s killer was captured and the police have built a strong case for her conviction. But I’ll never again hear my daughter’s cheerful voice say, “Hi, Mom.” I suggest to Mr. Compton that this is a very personal issue to me and to many others.

Palmer resident Patricia Chesbro is a former teacher, principal and superintendent in the Mat-Su Borough School District.