Wednesday, January 12, 2005
About Guns and Crime
This morning at 10:30 I was listening to a talk show on radio. The discussion was triggered by the recent Supreme Court decision to allow a lawsuit to proceed against a gun manufacturer for a crime committed with the use of one of the firm's products. The host had two representatives on the line to discuss the pros and cons of the case and also to comment on comments by call-in listeners.
The Pro-gun representative asserted that crimes are committed by criminals, that gun manufacturers can not logically be held accountable for what an individual may do with their products, that of course a gun is designed to kill or badly injure a person (otherwise why have one for protection?), and that there is a cause-and-effect correlation between crime rates and gun ownership. He went on to cite rural Virginia and urban Washington, DC. The crime rate in Washington is perhaps twenty or more times that in rural Virginia. He claimed that the crime rate in rural Virginia was low because nearly everone living there has a gun for personal protection. Virginia has liberal concealed weapon laws and it is easy for one to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
It struck me that his logic is reversed. Communities enact stiff controls on guns if the voters perceive the crime rate to be high. If voters perceive the crime rate to be low, they do not demand that such stiff controls be in effect. In other words, the rate of gun ownership in rural Virginia is high because the crime rate is low, and not the other way around. At least that's my reaction to the argument.
It reminds me of something I read many years ago about the harsh penalties for theft in some countries, Saudi Arabia being an example. The punishment is that one hand of the convicted thief is cut off. The rate of theft is extremely low in Saudi Arabia. Again, one can argue that the stiff penalty deters thieves. One can also argue that a culture with a very low rate of theft is willing, in fact eager, to accept such a harsh penalty.
The Pro-gun representative asserted that crimes are committed by criminals, that gun manufacturers can not logically be held accountable for what an individual may do with their products, that of course a gun is designed to kill or badly injure a person (otherwise why have one for protection?), and that there is a cause-and-effect correlation between crime rates and gun ownership. He went on to cite rural Virginia and urban Washington, DC. The crime rate in Washington is perhaps twenty or more times that in rural Virginia. He claimed that the crime rate in rural Virginia was low because nearly everone living there has a gun for personal protection. Virginia has liberal concealed weapon laws and it is easy for one to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
It struck me that his logic is reversed. Communities enact stiff controls on guns if the voters perceive the crime rate to be high. If voters perceive the crime rate to be low, they do not demand that such stiff controls be in effect. In other words, the rate of gun ownership in rural Virginia is high because the crime rate is low, and not the other way around. At least that's my reaction to the argument.
It reminds me of something I read many years ago about the harsh penalties for theft in some countries, Saudi Arabia being an example. The punishment is that one hand of the convicted thief is cut off. The rate of theft is extremely low in Saudi Arabia. Again, one can argue that the stiff penalty deters thieves. One can also argue that a culture with a very low rate of theft is willing, in fact eager, to accept such a harsh penalty.
