What Guns Do, and What they Don't
by Megan McArdle Dec 10, 2012 9:40 AM EST
Guns make conflict more dangerous. But they don't make it more likely.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/10/what-guns-do-and-what-they-don-t.html [snip]
When various states debated "shall issue" concealed carry laws--essentially, rules making it legal for anyone who could pass a rudimentary background check to carry a concealed handgun--there were horrified predictions of the chaos that would ensue. Modern life gives us so many opportunities for frustration and rage, from bumper-to-bumper traffic to endless queues. Adding a handgun to this volatile mix was simply inviting mass disaster. And of course, anyone who meditates for a moment on their own dark heart can understand this fear. I'm pretty physically passive, and so squeamish that I find even very mild movie violence unbearable, but I too have fantasized about having a tank so that I could go after that testosterone-addled teenage jerk who just cut me off in traffic. God knows what's going through the brain of the testosterone-addled teenage jerk when it happens to him. It's so easy to imagine how putting a gun in peoples' hands could lead to a body in the road.
But our imaginations, it turns out, are not a good guide to reality. None of this happened. Homicides did not rise after we legalized concealed carry, or ended the "assault weapons" ban. To date, holders of concealed carry licenses have not been involved in any more crimes than you'd expect from a group of people law-abiding enough to pass a background check. As Mark Kleiman wrote a few years ago, "There’s simply no evidence that keeping guns out of the hands of those currently eligible to own them under Federal law (adults with no felony convictions, no domestic-violence misdemeanors or restraining orders, and no history of involuntary commitment for mental illness) reduces the level of criminal violence. Nor is there evidence that allowing anyone who can pass a background check and a gun-safety course to carry a concealed weapon increases the level of criminal violence. "
[snip]
With several examples from "real life" Ms. McArdle delves into some of the reasons/excuses given for using/resorting to violence to resolve both real and imagined threats and slights. She clearly demonstrates that the mere presence/availability of a gun does not cause violence where it otherwise would not have existed. (Other than the anti-gun rights moonbats, did anyone ever think it did?)
But will this change the thoughts and behavior of the anti-gun rights moonbats? I say, resoundingly, "No!" Not because (although many have alleged so) that the anti-gun rights moonbats are incapable of accepting facts. It is because the anti-gun rights moonbats are not interested at all in rights - about guns or otherwise - but because they are interested in establishing control, and especially in establishing control over those who would assert their independence and freedom from the State as the provider of all things, from food/clothing/shelter to protection from violence. Over here on this side of the discussion are the folks who understand that the State cannot protect anything from violence and that the Supreme Court's many rulings that the State does not even have an obligation to protect an individual from violence are both logical and correct. At best, the State can react to violence and through the application of a greater amount of violence stop the original violence. Over on the other side are those who, for any of a variety of reasons, will not accept personal responsibility and liability for their own safety. It's sort of like the passenger of a sinking ship who capsizes the lifeboats because if he cannot be saved then nobody else ought to be saved.
stay safe.
