Posted on 01/10/2005 12:46:02 PM PST by CHARLITE
If you had a flat tire, would you fix the problem by replacing your car’s muffler? I know, it sounds funny. But that’s exactly the logic permeating throughout San Francisco’s City Hall. When San Francisco’s murder rate spiked in 2004, it could only be expected that local politicians would seek a solution.
Why they would seek to emulate a bad solution is anyone's guess.
Understanding the problem and using a bit of common sense could go a long way in dealing with such a serious issue, but the idea being floated around City Hall leaves a lot to be desired. Several San Francisco supervisors have proposed a ballot measure urging voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban. If you think that Mr. and Mrs. Law-Abiding Citizen are to blame for a surge in murder, then I’ve got oceanfront property for sale in North Dakota. In fact, they are exactly the ones who would suffer because of this myopia.
Is firearm violence out of control? Not according to the National Crime Victimization Survey. It found that from 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%, weapon violence went down 59%, and firearm violence decreased by 63%.[i][1] Thirty-four states now have “shall issue” Right-to-Carry laws, up from ten in 1987.[ii][2] In fact, unintended consequences can follow tough gun laws. John Lott explained this paradox in his book with a title that says it all, “More Guns, Less Crime.”
But, alas, San Francisco wants to join Washington D.C. at the forefront of gun prohibition. D.C. has nothing to brag about, however, after its handgun ban went into effect nearly 30 years ago. Not only is it our nation’s Capitol, but in 14 of the past 15 years, Washington D.C. has the dubious distinction of also being the murder capital of the nation.[iii][3]
It is simply incredible that the gun control lobby still perpetrates the myth that guns are to blame for societal ills. What they don’t want you to know is that empirical research continues to challenge their feckless arguments. “Current research and data on firearms and violent crime are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various measures to prevent and control gun violence,” says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.[iv][4] The panel for this report, appointed during the Clinton Administration with all but one researcher known to be supporters of gun control, proposed that more research is needed.[v][5] That may be nice, but some politicians want our guns now. Besides, the burden of proof should be on those trying to usurp our rights and freedoms—not the other way around.
If you want to fix that flat tire, grab the spare out of the trunk. If you want to deal with gun violence, go after the hardcore criminals responsible for the carnage. Proactive law enforcement targeting crime-infested neighborhoods has been proven to be the most effective way of curbing violence. With the help of federal authorities, local cops can target felons in possession of firearms sending them away for a decade or more under “Triggerlock” or “Project Exile” laws. Couple this approach with tough state legislation such as “Three Strikes,” and you have a recipe for success. What an interesting concept: actually utilizing current laws to prosecute offenders!
Cities across the nation that employ a “zero tolerance” approach to violent crime are reaping the benefits. New York City, which leads the way in policing tactics such as CompStat, saw its peak of 2,245 murders in 1990 drop to 571 in 2004. Chicago, the nation’s murder capital in 2003 with 598 homicides, watched as numbers fell to 447 in 2004. Police in the Windy City credited the Targeted Response Unit that saturates areas known for gang violence.[vi][6] Now if only these cities would loosen their strict gun control laws, a further drop in crime may be realized.
The tide has turned against gun prohibitionists. A memorandum opinion for the U.S. Attorney General states, “The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.”[vii][7] The self-evident right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their property is alive and well throughout most of America. But in places like San Francisco, this right is under constant attack.
Lawmakers should heed Machiavelli’s warning, “When you disarm them, you begin to offend them; you show that you distrust them either for cowardice or for lack of faith, both of which opinions generate hatred against you.”[viii][8] We live in a world where violent, brutal people threaten our livelihood. I wouldn’t recommend bringing a knife to a gunfight. As the old saying goes—God made men, but Sam Colt made men equal.
[i][1] “Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001,” National Crime Victimization Survey, U.S. Department of Justice
[ii][2] “Right-to-Carry Victories:1987-2004,” NRA-ILA
[iii][3] LaPierre, Wayne, “Standing Guard,” America’s 1st Freedom, December 2004
[iv][4] “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review,” National Academy of Sciences, 12/16/04
[v][5] “Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, says studies,” WorldNetDaily, 12/30/04
[vi][6] Bone, James, “US murder rate sinks as zero tolerance puts gangs on run,” TimesOnline, 1/3/05
[vii][7] Bradbury, Steven (Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General), “Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right,” Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, 8/24/04
[viii][8] Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, (translated by Harvey Mansfield) The University of Chicago Press, 1998, pg 83-84
About the Writer: Michael Nevin, Jr., is a Bay Area resident, police officer, and freelance writer.
Michael receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net
I'm still surprised police in San Fran are still allowed to carry guns while on duty!
"If you had a flat tire, would you fix the problem by replacing your car’s muffler?"
How about: if you had a violent crime problem, would you fix it by making the victims more helpless?
the "gun banner" solution to speeding teens in the 30 MPH zone is to lower the speed limit to 20 MPH.
Yeh, I wish we could get CCW here in the Peoples Republic of Illinois. :( Almost as bad here.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=11888
All too many think that is the solution, spok....all too many....
They can but it has to be a pastel color and lightly sented.
"If you had a flat tire, would you fix the problem by replacing your car’s muffler? "
This is SOP for government.
The OKC bombing was responded to by putting in metal at all federal buildings, but McVeigh used a car bomb parked outside, so how would that stop another such incident?
The world may never know...
That should read 'by putting in metal detectors'.
Ooops.
Don't forget the doily-covered holster, p. Swwwwwweet, Officer Lance!
LOLOLOL!
Did you really need to unload that leftwing nonsense?
Left-wing? Is it so hard to believe that someone may believe differently? That I may be conservative, yet not feel that someone needs to carry a gun to be safe?
Considering that there weren't even police in this country for the first hundred or so years, what makes you think that a societal answer is the only way to fix the problem?
Your attitude is dangerous utopian wishful thinking.
Dangerous and wishful? It works in other places. There comes a point at which you ask "what makes America different? Why do we need guns to feel safe and others don't, in our own homes and on our streets?" I mean, it's not like you're in a foreign country. You should be able to feel safe on your own block or in your house, without being ready to kill.
Knitebane, why should I have to carry a gun to ensure that others will not harm me? I mean, as opposed to raising kids not to become criminals, or dealing with them correctly the first time out. I just don't see why I should be ready and willing to kill or wound another human being, or to spend more money on a gun, training, and ammunition, when I already pay taxes to fund a police and court system to take care of me. I would prefer those institutions to work correctly, with the money I pay them to handle it for me.
To be blunt, I don't want to worry that I'll have to kill someone today to protect myself. I don't want to have to relive that day in the future, watching someone get maimed or killed by my hand, or that I won't be able to sleep. I don't want to have to do that in front of my children, to shoot someone because they were menacing and then explain to my kids why I had to end that person's life. I would like the courts and the police to do their job correctly, as they have in previous years. One of society's jobs is to take care of itself and its members, that's part of why humans live in cities - the protection aspect. We collectively pay for it, we should be demanding what we're owed.
I would venture to guess that the reason there weren't police would be because the population was so small and because people actually had a sense of societally acceptable behavior. I'm not sure, and I'll have to do more research before commenting further, but that's my preliminary guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.