Gun violence in Chicago is boiling. Toddlers are being shot. The number of homicides in Chicago this year is only slightly below the number of our military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. And now two Illinois state legislators say the answer may be to bring in the National Guard.
As a former mayor, I know cities need all the help they can get in fighting crime, but do we want to concede that it's time for military intervention? Still, this suggestion is worthy of debate -- not because it would be a sensible solution, but because it helps focus attention on how desperate the need is in too many parts of our country to do something now about the shootings, the injuries and the deaths.
One of the problems with this proposal to bring in armed troops to deal with an armed population of criminals is its potential to make a bad situation worse. In a way, it's not much different from what the gun pushers keep telling us. They say the problem is not that the bad guys have guns, it's that not enough good guys with guns are countering them. But do we really want to be like Baghdad circa 2005? More guns in more places leads to more gun violence -- whether accidental, unplanned, or intentional.
But cowardice in the face of the gun lobby drives elected officials to push more guns into more places, and even leads a company like Starbucks to allow guns in its stores. Alarmingly, the Starbucks officials say one of the reasons they're for it is they don't want their employees to have to ask customers with guns to leave - after all, those customers are armed.
So what we're being told, either by elected officials or private sector officials, is that we don't want to do things to restrict access to guns or where guns are taken, because we don't have the guts to upset the people with lots of guns. We just try to stack the deck and "escalate the conflict" by trying to get more "good guys" (who we hope won't make mistakes) with guns in our communities to counter the "bad guys" with guns.
Instead of conceding defeat, let's take steps to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. That's the proactive approach. That's the courageous approach.
If we stopped the illegal trafficking in guns, and strengthened the ability of law enforcement officials to prevent shootings before they happened, then we wouldn't have to be talking about calling in the National Guard.
Unless we wise up now and do the work needed to prevent a rise in gun violence, then this National Guard suggestion may be a glimpse forward into the future, when troops in our cities are the only option decision makers will think they have for dealing with 20-month-old children dying from gunshots.
But just how would you suggest that we do that?
Perhaps we'd start by giving the police the power to stop, search, and question anyone whom they think might be about to commit a crime? That might help "prevent shootings before they happened", to be sure. Of course, we'd also have to do away with any pesky requirements that there be some probable cause for the stop.
Then again, so few shootings happen in the presence of a police officer that we'd naturally have to have more police presence on the streets, in the alleys, in the stores, and in the homes. You wouldn't mind that, and the associated tax increases, would you?
Perhaps I've misinterpreted here. Perhaps you mean that we should change our culture to one which does not encourage violence as an acceptable response to anything except unprovoked aggression. If that's indeed what you mean, then I'm all in favor of it -- but I don't agree that that is the province of our police.
For now, in the world in which we live, I'll have to throw my lot in with those who think that the good guys should be armed. After all, good guys (including police, National Guard, and non-aggressive private citizens) greatly outnumber bad guys. That way, when the bad guys do bad things, they'll quickly be stopped.
We need to close gunshow loopholes, make interstate trafficking of weapons a very serious offense, and actually enforce the 10 year minimum sentence laws for people caught with an illegal firearm.
Declaring a position to be "common sense" is an inherent appeal to the "poisoning the well" fallacy.
"We need to close gunshow loopholes"
Please describe these loopholes. Explain how they specifically relate to "gun shows".
This is not necessarily true.
First, all but the most extreme fringes of "the gun crowd" embrace the registration of machineguns and other "restricted" weapons and point out that it has been highly successful in preventing the use of these weapons in crime. No one is illegally selling registered machineguns because (inter alia) they can be traced back to the seller. This is exactly what is NOT going on with non-"restricted" weapons, e.g. handguns and rifles -- because many can't be traced.
Why the cognitive dissonance when it comes to registering guns? In my view, it relates to how the issue is framed. Registration is seen as *facilitating* the ownership of machineguns, so they don't necessarily earn the "anti-gun" label. When it comes to handguns, the issue has been successsfully portrayed as a "prelude to confiscation."
Second, "the gun crowd" has its own objectives. Front and center among them is the fact that in some parts of the country (like the Northeast) people face an inconsistent patchwork of state and local laws. Registration could be passed if it was tied to actual benefits to gun owners. For example -- preclusion of inconsistent laws, and authorization to acquire guns in interstate commerce. This goes back to defining the issue in terms of protecting rights.
If I got the AR at a gun show, there would probably be no meaningful paper trail.
Am I missing something?
It also has to be mentioned that the registry for legally transferable "machine guns" was closed in 1986, meaning only those weapons manufactured and registered prior to 1986 can be legally owned. This has made these weapons become extremely expensive. Even the cheapest of legally own-able machine guns is well over $5000.
How do we do that? And if that is indeed the goal, then why does so much of the discussion focus on carry laws?
2. State legislators make dramatic and stupid gesture to draw attention to the problem.
3. Chicago Police Superintendent Jodi Weis says thanks, but no thanks.
4. Brady Campaign looks for an angle to score political points for its pet issue while ignoring the poverty, cultural issues, institutional neglect, racist history, misguided budgetary priorities, and government corruption that created the violence problem in Chicago.
Sad.
Paul, do you realize that the logic of the above argument supports the idea that we should disarm the police? You are saying the NG will make a bad situation worse because "[m]ore guns in more places leads to more gun violence -- whether accidental, unplanned, or intentional".
I doubt if that is what you really wish to advocate and I would bet that if the police were disarmed, the situation would get worse not better. I bet you think the same thing, but it totally destroys the premise of argument.
If Paul would advocate that policy, I would have greater respect for his analysis even though I would disagee with it. However, I do not think Paul thinks that the police should be disarmed and I do not believe he will advocate that the police should be disarmed.... and therein lies the logical fallacy of Paul's argument.
Data reliably and consistently show that crimes rates decline in areas where rates of legal gun ownership are higher. This makes intuitive sense; criminals are less likely to strike when they are uncertain about meeting an armed response.
Please substantiate these assertions.
Unless we wise up now ... then this National Guard suggestion may be a glimpse forward into the future, when troops in our cities are the only option..."
=====
The concern raised in the article is that imposition of government military control is bad. I agree. We do not want to live in a police state. However, the alternative proposed - "strengthening the ability of law enforcement" by curbing civil liberties - is not particularly different. In either case, you have government actors taking increased control of the citizens.
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=583519
Cooper's Corner, Guns and Ammo
Semper fi