When the numbers are considered, guns are good

by Robert Herbert, 1L
Law Weekly
April 1, 2009

Last week, the Law Weekly published an opinion piece by Naureen Mohammad decrying the persistence of D.C. gun violence in the wake of last year's Heller decision. Ms. Mohammad wrote the piece after finding a handgun under a flight of stairs at the Columbia Heights Metro stop.

In her article, she outlined several reasons why gun ownership should be severely restricted or totally banned. Mainly, she relied on three key arguments: guns are used in the commission of crime, children are killed by guns, and gun violence disproportionately affects African-Americans and women.

Ms. Mohammad notes that during the years D.C.'s total gun ban was in effect, citywide violent crime dropped precipitously. But she doesn't mention that violent crime dropped all over the country, and that D.C.'s dip in violent crime was not confined to gun-related crime, but rather the drop was across the board. Crime has dropped considerably not because of specific cities' gun control policies, but because of technological and methodological advancements in crime prevention.

Furthermore, she overstates the actual effects that the Heller decision will have on the day-to-day lives of the average D.C. resident. The Heller decision merely allows D.C. residents to keep a gun in their own homes for protection. Carrying a handgun in public, shooting cans at a park, bringing one to school, or leaving one in a subway station are all illegal.

Additionally, the use of a gun in the commission of a crime drastically ratchets up the penalty for said crime. It's not as if people treat gun-related crimes more laxly than other crimes; on the contrary, the penalty for the use of a gun in committing a criminal act is often greater than the penalty for the act itself.

According to Ms. Mohammed, in 2005, 2,000 children were murdered with guns, 800 committed suicide with a firearm, and just under 200 were the unintended victims of shootings. Every time a child dies, for whatever reason, it is a tragedy. But statistics like this must be put in perspective. Children murdered with guns are usually shot by another minor, who almost always obtained his gun illegally. One should also compare the number of gun-related accidental deaths (173) with the number of children who accidentally drown in swimming pools (782) or young people who lose their lives in car accidents (6,002 for ages 16-20).

It is also unlikely that the children who kill themselves with guns wouldn't just turn to alternative means in the absence of firearms. This isn't to say that these deaths are inconsequential, only that it's idealistic to think that these deaths wouldn't occur if guns are banned.

The fact that the African-American community has been so adversely affected by gun violence is lamentable, but this fact alone is not a reason to ban guns everywhere.

First, African-Americans are more likely to be victimized by violent crime in general; gun-related crimes are not a special case. Second, the gun-related acts victimizing African-Americans are already criminal. In fact, most gun-related crimes occur in urban areas where guns bans are in effect, such as New York, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, and D.C. It's clear that the problem isn't guns so much as it is crime, and the debilitating effects of living in poor urban areas: a lack of education, opportunity, and stability.

In defense of keeping gun ownership legal, Ms. Mohammad offers only two arguments: the Second Amendment and hunting. She says that the Second Amendment is not "set in stone." That's absolutely true. There is a very specific series of steps that Congress can go through to alter or erase an amendment. If enough people are unhappy with the Second Amendment, then it can be changed or repealed. So far, that hasn't happened. And even if the Second Amendment had never existed, the same arguments that support a gun rights amendment would support a gun-friendly policy.

The vast majority of gun rights supporters are not hunters, and over half of American gun owners keep guns primarily as a means of defense. The idea that we should outlaw semi-automatics because you don't hunt deer with a Glock 9 is beside the point. There is a reason police don't fight crime with bolt-action hunting rifles: different firearms have different attributes because they have different purposes.

Ms. Mohammad is absolutely right when she says Americans no longer protect themselves from foreign invaders and government overreach. But many do use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their homes.

Whether these people live in rural settings where the nearest police station is twenty miles down the road or in cities where the nearest police station is only several blocks away, the terrible truth is that the cops usually arrive too late to do any good.

Although guns were used in homicides 12,352 times in 2005, yearly rates of defensive gun use range from 1.5 million instances per year (according to anti-gun groups) to 2.5 million instances per year (according to pro-gun groups).

The right to defend oneself is paramount to a peaceful society. We've already completely outlawed weapons that serve little or no defensive purpose, such as fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, and bazookas; why then would we need to criminalize the possession of a weapon that, in good hands, can mean the difference between the life and death of an innocent?
Keeping guns legal means that there is some control over the conditions of ownership, whereas a ban doesn't prevent people from using them. Those who are more inclined to commit crimes are already lawbreakers; ban or not, guns are available to them either way, whereas law-abiding citizens will respect a ban and come up empty-handed against those who flout it.