“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed… Everyone who is able may have a gun”

Patrick Henry

The Columbine tragedy and the recent Atlanta shootings have caused people to push gun control. Unfortunately, this emotional attempt to disarm criminals is likely to result in unintended consequences. Most of the gun control advocates emphasize how dangerous it is to have a firearm. There is no doubt that guns are dangerous, but they are not nearly as dangerous as most people believe. It is three times more likely for people to be accidentally killed by fire than by firearms. The number of people who die in gun accidents is about one-third the number who dies by drowning. Bicycle accidents kill many more children than gun accidents do. The average motor vehicle is 12 times more likely to cause a death than the average firearm. A criminal who breaks the law using a firearm will not have any problem to transgress the law to get it. The only effect of the gun control is disarming the law-abiding individual as stated by an open letter from 287 economist, law-school professors and other academics to Congress, regarding gun-control legislation.

Governmental control is impossible. Even if all the guns in America magically vanished, criminals could easily resupply themselves. In the same manner that criminals can illegally import a huge volume of drugs, they can import at least twenty million guns annually. On the other hand, homemade manufacture of guns requires no more than the tools that most Americans have in their garages: a zip gun can be made from tubing, tapes, a pin, a key, whittle wood and rubber bands. Guns provide great benefits. A very good example of the positive effects of the freedom to buy and bear guns is one explained in an article by David B. Kopel for the Cato Institute that says: “In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando; burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women actually ended up firing her weapon; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando’s rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.” And not only do guns allow citizens to defend themselves, they also provide some protection to individuals who choose not to own guns since criminals would not normally know who can defend themselves before they attack. If the government does not allow people to use firearms freely, then it is violating the second amendment that guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the only way to enforce this regulation is by violating the individual freedom, the right of self-defense, and the sanctity of the home. By means of the search and seizure procedure the government is again breaking the law – the fourth amendment in this case. Consequently, gun control and the Bill of Rights cannot coexist.

Finally, why must the people defend their own lives? Because the government fails to provide a safe environment to live in – perhaps the most important government function. What is the solution provided by the government to this very last problem? The government prohibits people the right to protecting themselves. If we really care about saving lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that never happen because people are able to defend themselves. There is no reason why the government should respond to emotional arguments by disarming its citizens.

(c) Eneas Biglione - 1999

Publications:
The Apple News (China)
El Disidente (Argentina)