Thursday, February 2, 2012

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens | Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett | Cato Institute: White Paper

I've already written on the topic of gun/weapons control and the unconstitutionality of Congress or the state legislatures (due to the Incorporation Doctrine) limiting or banning certain kinds of arms/weapons, given the nature of the wording of the Second Amendment and the history and semantic analysis of the word "arms." That can be read here.  I understand that U.S. Case Law and legislative law says otherwise, but I disagree with these, and maintain that such laws and rulings are unconstitutional, given the reasons laid out in my referenced article on the word "arms."  

However, concerning gun regulation laws passed by Congress and the state legislatures, this article published by the Cato Institute provides clear evidence that instead of lowering gun violence and violent crime in general, gun regulations actually increase or in the very least maintain current levels of gun violence and violent crime in general.  This isn't necessarily a constitutional issue, but take a peak at what Cato has to say on the topic below and feel free to post your thoughts and opinions.  And let it be known, I do not own a gun, nor am I obsessed with them.

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens | Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett | Cato Institute: White Paper

"The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. The restriction of access to firearms will make criminals unable to use guns to shoot people. Gun control laws will also reduce the number of accidental shootings. Those are the desired effects, at least in theory. It is important, however, for conscientious policymakers to consider not only the stated goals of gun control regulations, but the actual results that they produce.

What would be the effect of depriving ordinary, law-abiding citizens from keeping arms for self-defense? One result seems certain: the law-abiding would be at a distinct disadvantage should criminals acquire guns from underground markets. After all, it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where they are urgently needed.
Outside of criminology circles, relatively few people can reasonably estimate how often people use guns to fend off criminal attacks. If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year.
This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.
Federal and state lawmakers often oppose repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns. That opposition is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in "road rage" or other contentious situations. Those assumptions are false. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent. That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns."

1 comment:

  1. I think that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands, but criminals will find out how to get a gun whether or not if it is illegal or not. Law abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves as long as they learn how to shoot and care for a gun in the proper way. A gun owner is responsible for what happens concerning the gun, so gun owners need to be aware. I think some people will be violent even without a gun.If they buy a gun then they are completely responsible for any accidents.