Gun Control - a study in the doctrine of unintended consequences

In light of the most recent act of unnecessary and unjustifiable murder
rampage by the Tucson shooter, and the subsequent upsurge of demand by some misguided individuals for
stricter gun controls, I thought it necessary to write the following
report on gun control legislation and how it has worked in the past:



Most gun control legislation hinders our Constitutional rights and
promotes crime because it is aimed at the wrong people. There is a
growing concern across America regarding the legislation of firearms.
Members of Congress have gone to great lengths to investigate an ever
increasing rise in crime and how to stop it. Gun control has been
widely tried with varying degrees of success. Newspaper and magazine
articles have reported on the success or failure of current laws on the
possession of firearms. The statistics speak loudly for themselves. Gun
laws today are aimed at the wrong segment of society. Rather than
helping the average American feel safer in his own home, th laws have
managed to promote crime.



Only one city in America, Roseburg, OR has successfully enacted
legislation that had made a difference in decreasing crime within the
community. According to the Star Telegram, "Roseburg became the only
city to enact a law requiring each of its home-owning citizens to own a
gun. Further, the use of the gun was condoned as a matter of
self-defense of one's own domain." Interestingly enough, the crime rate
in Roseburg decreased by 32 per cent within a year after enacting the
legislation. The difference this law has had on the small community of
Oregon has given rise to many questions about decisions made in other
cities wherein the possession of firearms is restricted or controlled by
laws and law enforcement agencies.



Strict control of possession of firearms by the citizens of the
community of Boston created the following situation. The World Press
stated, "New legislation in Boston, MA has made the 'Saturday Night
Special' an easy object for any crook to own, but has virtually taken
the ownership of a gun out of the hands of the average citizen." In
that article it tells the story of a man who tried to buy a .38
revolver, more commonly known as a 'Saturday Night Special'. After
waiting the 10-day waiting period now required by the city of Boston,
the man was told it would be another 30 days before he could legally
obtain the gun because of a special hold authorities had on issuing
permits for this type of gun.



An altogether different set of circumstances were found to be true with
two black men who had been arrested for aggravated assault in Boston.
According to the police files, the men "had arranged for the purchase
of" exactly the same kind of gun, and had "obtained a 'Saturday Night
Special' within 48 hours of parole." It took 40 days for the honest
citizen to own a gun, but less than two days for a pair of criminals to
find the same type of revolver and have it in their possession.



Perhaps the most widely publicized gun control law on record is the
legislation enacted by the city of Morton Grove, IL. No one is allowed
to own a gun within the city limits unless it is an antique and
registered with the Sheriff's department. "Burglaries in the city of
Morton Grove increased over 23 per cent for the first year and have
continued to mount." according to the Field and Stream magazine. This
is a drastic contrast tot he decreased crime rate of Roseburg, OR.



In a congressional investigation conducted by Ted Kennedy, firearms -
law authority, Don B. Kates, Jr., testified, "According to available
manufacturing and import figures since 1989, America has between 55 and
60 million handguns. Even taking the lower figure, less than one out of
every 6,000 handguns is used in homicide and less than one out of every
400 is used in any kind of violent crime. (Note that murderers may,
and robbers generally will use the same weapon on several different
offenses.)" Mr. Kates went on to state that, "...we already have 20,000
Federal, state and local 'gun control' laws that are effective to the
very limited extent that any anti-gun law can control the kinds of
people who misuse weapons."



Chip Elliott wrote in Esquire Magazine on the uspurge of crime in San
Francisco, "In the spring of 1976, we were living in the San Francisco
bay area. Our friends, Boris and Ute -- a Yugoslav sculptor and a
German painter -- had just bought a house on Venice, and we quickly
rented a house nearby on Electric Avenue.... But it quickly became
apparent that all was not as it seemed on Venice." He goes on to tell
of a neighborhood shooting, a robbery two blocks from where they lived, a
fatal stabbing, a rape, and several assault incidents. "We bought a
new revolver, a .38 Special Smith and Wesson, and had the hand-grips
filed down so my wife could hold it easily. The two weeks while we
waited for the permit to go through were the most terrifying of my
life."



While over 20,000 laws have been enacted to help decrease the crimes
committed with the use of hand guns, the facts and figures still attest
to the fact that crime rates are rising at alarming speed. The laws
have simply not met the challege before us. Outdoor Life Magazine
writes, "Here we have Morton Grove and by now, probably several dozen
similarly righteous hamlets (to say nothing of San Francisco, Chicago
and New York); and states such as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey
and others sure to come; all eager to finess tough problems like crime
with easy 'solutions' such as keeping firearms out of the hands of
honest people."



In an article entitled "The Press Takes A Second Look At Gun Control" it
states, "The major media are beginning to reprt the views of the
pro-gun faction -- a major shift from their usual anti-gun coverage. And
we say it's about time!" At that point in time the press was taking a
second look at their coverage of anti-gun legislation, and they had
taken a positive step forward in addressing the opposite side of that
coin.



Until recently, the press had remained somewhat mute on the subject, but
since the new President, Barack Obama, has come on the scene; that
shift has once again taken a drastic step in the wrong direction, both
blaming 'political' and highly regarded members of the 'conservative
community' for inciting such actions with incendiary speech, i.e. speech
that is not politically correct according to the current administration
and the mainstream media news reporters (if one can even call them
'news' reporters.)



Rather than legislation that takes a negative stand on trying to solve
the rising crime rates nationwide, we need to take positive steps
forward in addressing the problems at hand. Our Constitutional right as
stated in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution reads in part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."


The intent of this Amendment is made more clearly stated with the following quotes:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the
Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member
of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
The "whole body of the Militia" means the whole body of the people!



"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is
able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on
the ratification of the Constitution.)




"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the
people of all other nations {is this}. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments
in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public
resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist
Paper No. 46.)




Our average, law-abiding citizen is directly affected by the current
laws regulating the ownership of firearms. Most laws today are sadly
misdirected and misguided. There has been error made on the part of many
local authorities who believe stricter gun control works. Through the
press and misinformation voters have been duped into believing the
legislation will help. This type of useless legislation needs to be
reevaluated. Far from helping the typical man-on-the-street, the laws
have restricted him so severely in some instances that he cannot even
own a gun with which to protect himself.



Laws do often inhibit the activities of the law-abiding rather than the
criminal. This has been especially true of our gun rules. Crime has
continued to increase despite the attempts made to curb ownership of
firearms. As citizens of the United States, we are entitled through the
sanctity of the Constitution of the United States of America to carry a
firearm for our own protection.



If laws are to be used to control criminal activity, then they should be
directed at the criminal and not at the average man-on-the-street. As
it currently stands, our gun control legislation limits our
Constitutional right to own a weapon: it encourages -- even helps
promote crime, and is grossly negligent in its aim. Rather than helping
the innocent individual, it hinders and restricts his inherent freedom,
and places him in jeopardy as a prime target for criminals.

The city of Roseburg, OR stands as the ONLY city to make a practical and workable law that actually addresses the subject of diminishing crime as figures have indicated above. As a nation the "whole body of the people" are to "always" have the right by the Constitution to keep and bare arms.
by: Annette Akerman