^TM

Gun-control laws actually lead to more violent crime

By Michael D. Robbins

December 27, 1995

Editor's Note: This column is a response to a recent editorial titled "A lethal mix: guns and teens -- Fight fire with new legislation."

      Effective public policy must be based upon, and not ignore or cover up, the historical factual record including the most complete and accurate scientific research. Gun control advocates always cover up the fact that often, gun control increases violent crime, as it has in Washington, D.C.; N.Y.; Chicago; California; England; Jamaica; and elsewhere (from government and academic studies). In no case has gun control ever reduced violent crime.

      Gun control advocates always use myths and false premises because their position cannot be supported with scientific facts. They falsely define the problem, and then propose irrational, counterproductive policies. For example, they fail to distinguish between violent criminals and ordinary nonviolent people, and define the problem as availability of firearms to ordinary people rather than the deficiencies of our catch-and-release criminal justice system.

      Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would not have been successful, nor even taken seriously, if they had lobbied for laws to restrict sober drivers, or restrict ownership of vehicles because some are misused by drunk drivers. MADD was successful because they lobbied for rational laws that target criminals rather than ordinary citizens and inanimate objects.

      Jurisdictions with minimal gun control, and higher rates of firearms ownership, typically have lower violent crime rates than immediately adjacent jurisdictions with extensive restrictions. Virginia, with little gun control, has 8 murders per 100,000 population compared to 79 for adjacent Washington, D.C. which has a long-standing ban on handguns and "assault weapons".

      Most adults can verify, from memory, that 35 years ago there was much less crime. At that time there was almost no gun control restricting adults or minors. Crime skyrocketed after enactment of increasingly restrictive gun control, making it obvious that "easy availability" never was the problem.

      People must protect themselves and their families because no government police, entities, or officials may be held liable for failure to protect any individual (California Government Code Section 845 and others).

      Benefits of firearms availability far outweigh costs of criminal misuse. Gun control supporters always ignore the efficacy of firearms for self-defense against stronger or more numerous attackers. Independent scientific research shows that firearms are used more often in the U.S. for self-defense by ordinary people than in all crimes, suicides and accidents combined-and less than one percent of these defenses result in shooting the attacker, because mere possession and display of a firearm is almost always sufficient.

      Independent researchers reported 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the U.S. by civilians each year (1.9 million with handguns), usually without firing; defense with a firearm is safer and more effective than any other method, including non-resistance; and armed citizens contribute significantly to crime control, strengthening the criminal justice system both through armed resistance and multiple deterrent effects, benefiting all citizens including those who do not own firearms.

      Orlando, Florida reduced their rape rate by 88 percent within six months by training 2,500 women in basic firearm safety and widely publicizing that program.

      The California State Sheriffs Association opposes firearms registration, licensing, and prohibition, and instead supports the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns, rifles, and shotguns of their choice, including affordable handguns and traditional semiautomatic firearms mislabeled as "assault weapons", for self-defense or sport. They also support the same type of real criminal justice system improvements that firearms owners support.

      Numerous polls of police chiefs and rank and file officers by organizations that actually poll their members, such as the National Association of Chiefs of Police, consistently show that law enforcement is overwhelmingly in agreement (by 90 percent) with this position. No police organization supporting gun control will poll their members because they already know they will lose. *

      If California were to suffer the same murder rate that Washington, D.C. suffered after banning handguns and "assault weapons" in 1976, California (4,096 murders) would have had 18,382 additional murders in 1993. Felon surveys determined that less than 15 percent of felons prefer or actually use affordable, less powerful handguns mislabeled as "Saturday Night Specials", and that 86 percent of predatory felons who carried handguns would substitute more powerful sawed-off shotguns or rifles if handguns were unavailable, substantially increasing the death rate.

      Ninety-three percent of criminals obtain their firearms illegally, without registration or license, and nothing prevents other criminals from doing the same. Even worse, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Haynes v. U.S. (1968), that a felon could not be convicted for failure to register firearms, because that would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

      The real use for registration is the ban and confiscation of firearms from the law-abiding public, as was done in N.Y.; Gary, Indiana; and Morton Grove, Illinois. Handgun Control, Inc. founder Nelson Shields admitted his organization's agenda in an interview in the July 26, 1976 New Yorker magazine: their three-step program would restrict production, sales, and ownership; develop universal registration lists; and then ban and confiscate items on the registration lists.

      Gun control increases violent crime because it shifts the balance of power to favor criminals over ordinary citizens; inhibits self-defense; reduces the deterrent effects of armed citizens; squanders criminal justice resources; and is used as a smokescreen by soft-on-crime public figures who exploit the tragedy of murdered children and police officers to advance their careers and divert attention away from their personal failure to support real criminal justice reforms.

Michael D. Robbins is an El Segundo City councilman who has researched firearms policy for many years.

* This paragraph (highlighted in blue) on police opinion and police polls was ommitted by the Daily Breeze, but was included in the original submission and in the subsequent publication in The Firing Line, a publication of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA).

Michael D. Robbins

P.O. Box 2193

El Segundo, CA 90245

Copyright ©1995 Michael D. Robbins