I apologize profusely for taking so incredibly long to post here again. Procrastination and school work haven’t helped the situation, despite having many good ideas for post subjects. On the one hand, I have built up quite a stockpile of great subjects for posts, but on the other you were deprived of my meanderings for a long damn time.
Today, ladies and gentlemen I want to talk to you about gun control. For those of you who know my politics, you know that I vehemently oppose gun control in all of its forms as I believe that the right to self defense is a basic human right, and we have the right to utilize and exercise that right with whatever tool we see fit. More importantly, whatever the government can own, citizens should be able to own. I believe this because I believe that freedom and liberty must come first before everything.
Yes, everything, and no I will not make an exception. Would my idea of perfect liberty and freedom provide us with world peace? No, but anybody who sincerely believes that ‘world peace’ is even possible would be called a naive idealist even by Jesus Christ or The Buddha. World peace, while a beautiful ideal, is just that. An ideal. It is not practical nor possible, at least not in this day and age. Perhaps thousands, or tens of thousands of years in the future when humanity no longer has homicidal maniacs or sociopaths or power hungry fuckheads, we will be able to work towards world peace. But not today.
And those homicidal maniacs, sociopaths and power hungry fuckheads are the exact reason why I oppose gun control with such fervor. Because those people have never and will never obey any type of gun laws. Why? Because they don’t give a fuck. If gun control was the answer, Washington DC, Detroit, and Oakland California would be havens of peace. If any of you have ever been to DC, Detroit or Oakland, you will know they are anything but peaceful. In fact, those three cities have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Detroit has the second highest violent crime rate in the country (St. Louis is the first). It also has the third highest murder rate in the country. DC has the seventh highest murder rate in the country. Yet all three of those places have some of the strictest gun control in the country.
With that strict gun control, should the gun grabbers be right, shouldn’t places like St. Louis and Detroit be wonderful places to live?
On the converse side, we have Vermont, where I live. I will make no assertions as to Vermont being crime-free, because it’s anything but. It does, however, have a significantly lower crime rate than many other places in the country. Last year (2009), Vermont had a total of 817 violent crimes, which makes the violent crime rate roughly 0.13%. Compare this to New York which in the same year had 75,176 violent crimes, bringing their violent crime rate to a fucking impressive 0.38%. Now you might laugh at that number. After all, 0.38% is less than one percent. That’s very low, right?
Wrong. Think about it in context. 0.38 percent is over double the size of 0.13 percent. Now the argument of the other side will be, “Well New York is far larger than Vermont, of course it’s going to have a higher crime rate!” No, Mr. I-can’t-do-math. Yes, New York is bound to have more crime because it has a far larger population (nearly 31 times the size of vermont’s) but that doesn’t mean it should have a higher rate. If gun control was having a very mild effect on crime, let’s say simply keeping it level, then New York’s violent crime rate for 2009 should be 0.13 percent, just like Vermont. In fact, if the gun-grabbers are to be believed, it should be the other way around: Vermont should have the higher crime rate while New York has the lower, because New York has the “better” gun control.
Additionally, this is state wide. Buffalo, New York, has a whopping violent crime rate of 14.59 percent in a city of 268,655 people (that’s almost 1 violent crime for every 6 people!) It has a scary murder rate of 0.22 percent (that’s 591 people dead). So once we bring it down to city-wide crime, we suddenly start seeing much scarier numbers.
In reality, Vermont is one of the safest states in the nation and has been ever since the implementation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. If guns were really the problem, then Vermont should be the proverbial old west, with shootings happening all the time. We’re actually rated as one of the worst states to live by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence where as California is rated as one of the best to live (despite having Oakland, which has the sixth highest murder rate in the country).
The Brady Campaign is part of the problem, however. They are insisting that the solution to gun violence is a bunch of blanket laws that illegalize guns. This would be like illegalize alcohol to stop crimes induced by drinking. Oh wait… we tried that. IT DIDN’T WORK. Or does the Brady Bunch forget about prohibition and what a cluster-fuck it was?
A bunch of blanket laws wouldn’t stop gun violence. It’s simply just a feel-good measure, making people who know nothing about the situation feel better because they can now go to bed happy, knowing that the government has made some laws. It’s ridiculous. Murder, theft, and every other violent crime IN THE WORLD is illegal, but it doesn’t stop criminals from perpetrating them. The problem is not the means of the crime, but the person committing the crime. The solution to stopping crime is stopping the criminals, not making the tools they use illegal. Not to mention that criminals don’t get their guns from legitimate means most of the time anyway. It’s like illegalizing bananas in the goddamn jungle. The monkey isn’t going to care that he can’t buy a banana from the store, he’ll just go to the nearest tree and fucking pick one, JUST LIKE HE ALWAYS DOES.
Criminals get most of their guns from the black market in order to make sure if the weapon is discovered it will be harder to trace. The black market gets their guns from many sources, including stolen weapons and getting them from overseas dealers. Making guns illegal everywhere would make it impossible for them to steal guns, yes, but it would hardly diminish their supply of illegal guns. All gun control does is disarm the very people it’s supposed to protect. That’s like trying to curb drunk driving by making it illegal to drink. People who still want a drink will get a drink.
There’s a reason I’m calling back to Prohibition, and it’s because it’s the same thing only different. The only difference between prohibition and gun control is what is being controlled. Prohibition didn’t work and only made the situation worse. Gun control isn’t working, and just like prohibition, is simply making the situation worse.
The Washington DC gun ban was instituted in 1975. During that time, the number of violent crimes was 12,704 for a population of 716,000. In 2007 (a year before the ban was declared unconstitutional), the number of violent crimes was 8,320 for a population of 588,292.
Now, at first glance it seems the gun ban, worked, right? After all, 8,320 is lower than 12,704. But look closer. The population fell from 1975 to 2007 by roughly 127,000 people. The violent crime rate, on the other hand, only fell by 4384. That’s a 34% decrease in terms of violent crime rate, but only a 17 percent decrease in population. Wow! That’s great, right?
Wrong. Look. Again. In 1975, the violent crime rate was 1.7 percent. In 2007, it was 1.4 percent. So for the most part, with the exception of .3 percent, it stayed the exact same. If we look closer, and zoom in on the murder, it shows my point even more. In 1975, the murder rate was 0.0328 percent. In 2007 it was 0.0307 percent. Barely any change what-so-ever. Was disarming the innocent public really worth it for a an insignificant .3 percent change in violent crime and a .0021 percent change in murder? That’s like using a coupon to save .0021 of a cent on groceries. Not 21 cents. But .0021 of a cent. To give you an idea of how small of a number that it is, in order to save a penny, you would need 476 of them.
In 2007, there were still 181 murders, 192 forcible rapes, and 3,686 aggravated assaults. That measly percent change due to the gun ban of 1975 is hardly worth 181 lives and the honor of 192 women, don’t you think? It’s not even worth one life or the honor of one woman in my opinion.
Now comes the part where I stop bitching and offer a solution. Today, there’s too much bitching about whether or not gun control works and too little work being done. It’s proven that gun control isn’t working, so what can we do that will work?
Firstly, make it mandatory for everyone to get gun training. I am not advocating that everyone must own a gun, but everyone must know how to use one. Why? Because then guns will be handled with more respect. If you look into any single hand gun accident that wasn’t a freak accident, I bet you will see that every single one was caused by someone not observing gun safety.
If everyone knows gun safety, this not only enables them to pick up and use a gun if they have to, but also to have more respect for guns. This will thus make children less afraid of guns and also make them think of them more as tools that much be handled with care rather than toys. Guns can be fun to shoot at the range, or during hunting, but that fun must be had in safety. One stray bullet or one fuckhead who doesn’t know how to use his gun is all it takes to make your day turn shitty.
Secondly, focus on repeat offenders. I won’t start an argument about death penalty or not death penalty here, but something must be done about repeat offenders. At the very least, offer a rule where the offender will never be released on parole again if they commit another crime of magnitude. I’m not talking about throwing them back in jail for forgetting a parole meeting or stealing a candy bar, of course, but they need to punished if they are given a chance like parole and squander it.
Additionally, there are some crimes that people shouldn’t be offered parole for. Murder is one of them. If you commit first degree murder, you should be given the maximum penalty allowed – no exceptions. Repeat offenders are not only an insult to the victims, but are a sign of a justice system that is horribly flawed.
Thirdly, educate people and work to alleviate poverty. 90% of the people who get into crime don’t do it because they want to. They commit a crime because they have no other choice. There are of course people in the 10%, maniacs, sociopaths, etc. But most people do not choose a life of crime because they think it’s fun. They choose a life of crime because they have no other way to survive.
I will write a more in-depth post about alleviating crime, but I hope this post has given you guys something to think about. I certainly thought about some things while writing it.
Until next time, stay frosty.