Relationship between guns and crime

So I see gun control popping back up in the news this week. Like I tend to do, I spent time thinking about an issue from as logical a point-of-view as I can. Along the way I came up with some rather remarkable theories regarding why advocates of banning firearms think the way they do. Here are some of the justifications I hear for banning guns and my responses:

“Guns cause crime”

This one confuses me. I’ll assume that those people don’t honestly think guns sprout little legs and evil personalities in order to run around committing heinous crimes (they don’t, do they?). Rather, they think that without guns men wouldn’t be able to be violent criminals.

Really? So most of history class was spent asleep? I don’t recall Smith & Wesson being a part of the Mongol expansion in Asia. I don’t recall Mossberg aiding the Romans or the Aztecs, Macedonians or Spartans. Maybe some of these people who believe in this concept would enjoy a trip back through time to those wonderful, peaceful Dark Ages when people took their lives into their hands just traveling from one village to another. No, I think I have to stick with the notion that man is capable of extreme violence with or without firearms.

“If you take away guns, criminals lose their ability to use them.”

Less than 2 percent of all firearms used in the process of committing crimes are purchased at a firearms distributor. Criminals usually have an existing record that prevents them from directly purchasing a firearm from a gun store. A few use somebody without a record to do a straw purchase (giving somebody else the money to go buy the gun for them, a serious federal offense for both parties). Most often, they obtain stolen firearms. In the latter case, banning the sale of firearms only takes away the ability for somebody to legally purchase a gun. Translation: you and I can’t have a gun, but the criminal breaking into your house tonight will still have his/hers.

“I’m not for the outright banning of guns; I just want those banned I think are assault weapons.”

According to whom? California has become the expert at determining what an assault weapon is through constant reinterpretation. Changing the acceptable barrel length so that more than 50 percent of handguns are now considered assault weapons was one ploy. Continuing to lower the maximum caliber allowed is another. The requirement to have each expended shell have a stamp placed on it as the gun is fired required massively expensive retooling by most major manufacturers. Some manufacturers simply chose to no longer sell guns in California. Many other states that have been unsuccessful banning firearms are beginning to adopt similar measures. One of the more popular ploys is to declare that ammunition containing lead is against the law “for the environment.” In other words, you can have a gun you just can’t have ammunition.

And why do we consider magazine capacities? Are the 15 bullets a standard magazine will hold less lethal than the bullets in a 21-round magazine? Is the anti-gun crowd saying it’s willing to accept 15 victims but, by gosh, more than that is unacceptable? Is a criminal going to cancel his plans because he forgot how to drop an empty magazine and insert a new one?

“Banning guns makes communities safer.”

I’ve looked into this one. I wanted to see where those who make this argument were getting their evidence. I found the “studies” that support this fallacy are, for the most part, conducted by the United Nations. These are the same people who want handguns banned throughout the world.

But where the U.N. got its data remains a mystery. I also found some “studies” done by this doctor or that sociologist who also claim similar results. But again, where they get their figures remains elusive.

However, you can find annual statistics published by many national police agencies (such as our own FBI) that use hard data compiled from annual reports from around the respective countries that has shown the opposite to be true 100 percent of the time. The city within an industrialized nation that has the worst crime rate is London, where it is illegal to own a firearm. In contrast, the city with the least is Tel Aviv, Israel, where nearly every resident has an automatic rifle in the home. Other fun statistics: the crime rates went up in Washington, D.C, Australia and Brazil after severely restrictive firearm laws were put in place. When they eased restrictions in Washington, D.C., the crime rate fell.

No doubt there are many of you reading this who by now have concluded that I’m a lifetime member of the NRA who wears his camo pants, sleeveless T-shirt and listens to Glenn Beck while driving to the nearest gun store to stock up on survival supplies, and that I’m merely regurgitating something they printed in order to justify my armory or need to buy rifles by the dozen.

In reality, I’m just a guy who likes to hear both sides of a debate supported by hard facts and objective reasoning. I don’t feel the need to have an anti-aircraft gun in my yard. I don’t feel the need to own an AK-47. But yes, I admit I enjoy occasional target shooting as a form of recreation and I’ve come to the conclusion that a moose is probably much easier to bring down with my rifle than my Buck knife.

I also know that home invasion and the like are a reality and I like to know I have something other than bad breath to defend my family. So far, the anti-gun movement just hasn’t brought forth an argument that carries any weight. Give me an example of a crime committed with a firearm and I’ll give you a hundred examples of equally horrific crimes committed without one.

In the end, it’s the man and not the device that is wholly accountable. If we’re going to start laying blame on the methods used to commit crime and violence, what a slippery slope we descend. Should we propose bans on knives, barbecue forks, machetes, pipe, lumber scrap, rope, chains, piano wire, bags and tape, water, cars, axes, pointy sticks, large rocks, knitting needles and baseball bats? Yes, of course there needs to be laws, statutes and the like in order to responsibly purchase or possess a firearm. I get concerned when I read about Joe or Jane Criminal buying a Glock at a garage sale without having to pass a background check. I don’t want the young man in line with me who has no military or police training to feel as though he’s Rambo and will save us all with his concealed Walther when an armed criminal is robbing the gas station I’m in.

But there is a vast difference between the notion of responsible firearm laws and outright banning.

Ben Compton is a Palmer resident and publishes his column under the tagline “Compton’s Corner,” the same title used by his grandmother, Phyllis Compton, a longtime Frontiersman columnist.