What a waste: the shooting in Tucson. Now, many are calling for tougher gun control. After all, this 22-year-old walked into a gun store and passed a "quick check" to purchase the gun he used. Appears to be a prima facie case for tougher controls.
Let's assume for a moment that Arizona had some of the toughest gun control laws instead of some of the most lax laws. What would have flagged this kid's application? He's a loner? He dropped out of college? Nothing, I can see, would have prevented his purchase.
Ah, but if only we had tougher control. Perhaps laws as tough of those in Washington, D.C. That surely would have saved lives, right? Perhaps with D.C.'s tough laws (and a 31.4 per 1000 murder rate), Arizona (with a murder rate of 7.0 per 1000) would see 24 more deaths per thousand. So, tougher laws would kill 24 more citizens per 1000 population. (Source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0304.pdf)
Control folks will say D.C. is an anomaly: New York which has very tough gun laws would be a better exemplar. (New York's murder rate is 4.3 per 1000 population.)
The problem with this logic is that if tougher gun control laws reduce the murder rate, there should be consistency when laws are tougher, the constitutional question notwithstanding.
If fact when Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance REQUIRING all citizens to have a gun, crime rates dropped. Perhaps the case can be made that all adult citizens must carry a firearm at all times. I wonder how long this low life would have lasted if all the citizens were armed and saw what he was about.
No comments:
Post a Comment