The TIW Blog

I am writing in support of Polsby’s position against tougher gun control laws. In doing so I will summarize Polsby’s arguments, present opposing views from Vernick et al., and close with personal remarks.

Polsby believes that the conventional wisdom assuming a positive correlation between the availability of handguns and crime is incorrect. In questioning this, he draws some doubt into the statistics that are available. For example, data counting those hurt by people using hand guns is readily available, but lives saved and crimes prevented through armed citizens is not available.

The reliability of legislation is also called into question as Polsby observes that the effect of a law often differs from the purpose of that law. In other words, laws that aim to curb gun violence can actually contribute to it.

Statistics concerning gun availability and crime can also support Polsby’s position. For example, since the dramatic rise of gun availability since the 1960s, one would expect that the rate of spousal homicide would rise at a corresponding rate. It has not. Also, one could assume that countries with similar rates of guns per household (such as Israel, Switzerland, and New Zealand) would have relatively higher crime rates. They do not. Conversely, countries with strict gun control laws in place (such as Mexico and South Africa) actually have higher problems with crime. Opponents of Florida’s relaxed concealed carry laws predicted increased gun crime, but have seen a decrease in such crime instead.

Vernick et al. make the case for tougher gun control laws by comparing Canada’s gun ownership requirements with that of the US. The US defines who cannot own a gun, while Canada defines who can own a gun. The result is fewer guns per household in Canada with a (presumably) associated lower rate of violent crime.

The Second Amendment to the US constitution guarantees the right of the citizens to be armed. While Vernick et al., do not contest this, they point out that when it comes to guns – we should be willing to yield some personal autonomy for the greater good.

Social justice is also a concern set forth by Vernick et al. in support of gun control laws. Knowing that some demographics such as African Americans and those of lower socioeconomic standing are at alarmingly higher risk of being victims of gun violence, why not make an effort to curb the availability of guns so that these people can have a better chance at life? Why should someone have to be at higher risk of victimization just because of that person’s race?

Polsby and Vernick et al. illustrate the futility of statistics. For every statistic in favor of an argument are other statistics that contradict that argument. I think that framing the gun control debate around statistics is not profitable, though the statistics available should certainly be entertained.

The social justice component of Vernick et al.’s argument has merit. I believe that we should do everything possible to elevate those who currently are at higher risk of crime. No one should have to suffer as a victim of crime just because of their ethnicity or because of their poverty. However, sufficient evidence seems to exist to demonstrate that the government has never had a positive effect on social justice. In fact, government involvement intended to promote social justice has had the opposite effect. I think social justice is best pursued outside of government legislation.

Finally, Polsby’s desire to address the root causes of violent crime is commendable. By finding ways to improve education, jobs, and opportunity for those most affected by crime (victims and perpetrators) is the most moral solution to the dilemma of hand gun crime. Although addressing these issues would require much time and resources, we will do everything within our power to do if our commitment to social justice goes beyond lip service.

References

Satris, S. (2010). Taking sides: Clashing views on moral issues. New York: McGraw-Hill.