Give Them Uzis and Watch the Crime Drop

I like to approach the blogosphere the way I do a dinner party. I start off by sampling the daily offerings from lighter sites like Deadspin and Gawker as if they were hors d'oeuvres. Once I've whet my appetite with bits of sports news and yuppie gossip, I get right down to business, marching my way down the all-you-can-eat buffet line of political sites. I'll start off in comfortable territory, gobbling up the daily opinions on Huffington Post and ThinkProgress, but this is just prep for the meaty main course of conservatism which I find at Townhall. I tuck my napkin in my shirt and tackle the hearty helping of right-wing ideology like a 72 oz. steak.

Today's edition of Townhall features opinions from the likes of penguin-demonizing pundit Michael Medved and John Stossel, who has suggested global warming "may be a good thing" and argued that young people not voting is good for democracy earlier this month.

But it was Walter Williams' column about murder rates in American cities that really got me riled up. Williams argues that lax gun control laws that have enabled dealers to flood urban areas with firearms have nothing to do with rising rates of gun violence. Furthermore he claims that making it more difficult for, say, malicious crack kingpins to get their hands on guns would be a step in the wrong direction. Are you for real, Dr. Williams?

Last year 406 people were murdered in Philadelphia, and the death toll is on pace to exceed that total as the streets have already claimed 264 victims this year. Williams was raised in North Philly, so I'd expect him to bring a more realistic approach to the problems of urban gun violence. I understand Williams has strong libertarian economic views and I don't disagree with his belief that the way to get to the root of most social problems is to provide economic opportunity. I think his faith in the free market to solve poverty alone is a bit out of touch with reality, but at least it's logical: lower taxes à spur economic growth à create jobs à people work instead of commit crimes.

Williams' argument against gun control, on the other hand, is just silly. How could making it easier for a dangerous drug lord to load up on Lugers be a good thing? You don't have to be chair of an economics department like Williams is to know that if there's a large demand for guns among dangerous drug lords and there's a large supply of guns with no real restrictions to who buys them, then you're gonna have a lot of dangerous drug lords running around strapped and ready to kill.

To back that theory up with some data, I'd like to call attention to gun crime rates over the last decade. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, gun crime rates dropped for 10 straight years after 1994 when the Brady Law mandating criminal background checks on gun sales went into effect. But three years ago gun crime rates started creeping back up, jumping nearly 50 percent between 2004 and 2005. Think this might have something to do with the fact that Congress allowed the ban in the Brady Law on semiautomatic assault weapons to expire in September 2004?

Thanks to the gun lobby's powerful hold on legislators at the federal and state level, all those AK's, Tec 9's, and Glocks 50 Cent is always rapping about are as easy for Philly dealers to get their hands on as a good cheesesteak. I always like sampling from the buffet table of opinions and considering arguments from different perspectives, but there's something about Williams' case for unfettered access to Uzis that just doesn't go down right.

Comments

[1will]

So if there were more gun laws would these drug lords obey them? It seems doubtful that drug lords or gang members that are already committing felonies would suddenly turn their guns in after another law is passed. A felon can already get 5 years in jail for just handling a gun and another 5 years in jail for handling ammo. More gun laws are just feel good legislation that does nothing.
I wonder if all gun sales were banned tomorrow where these drug lords would get their guns. Do you suppose that the smugglers that bring in the Cocaine, Heroin and Meth might start bringing guns as well. There is nothing you can do to keep these felons from having their guns.
The author was wrong about the Brady Law. It is still in effect. I believe he was referring to the the Assault Weapons Ban but mixed up his propaganda. When the AWB became law these weapons were used in less than 1% of murders. This was a feel good law that did nothing. It had nothing to do with the Brady Law.

[harker6868]

If guns mean so much to their owners then make them responsible if they are used for something other than the legal use they were bought for. You buy a gun you own it, track it, care for it and love it like a child because if it ever gets out of your possession YOU will pay for the consequences. For the life of that gun YOU are responsible for how, when, why and where it is used.

I don't know. I don't think guns should be illegal but I really am sick to death of criminals being better armed than the rest of us and I don't think an arms race between the criminals and law abiders helps anyone. Especially those caught in the cross-fire.

ANd by the way - lots of people prefer NOT to own guns or have them around - they have every right to feel that way AND to think that the NRA and gun-lovers often come off as zealots in their defense of the ability to shoot a bullet.

[FilthyMcNasty]

"If guns mean so much to their owners then make them responsible if they are used for something other than the legal use they were bought for. You buy a gun you own it, track it, care for it and love it like a child because if it ever gets out of your possession YOU will pay for the consequences. For the life of that gun YOU are responsible for how, when, why and where it is used. "

Okay. Same thing for automobiles, knives, and any other property taken without the owner's knowledge. And even if you sell the car you're still responsible for what the new owner of the auto does with it. You DID say "For the life of that..."

"I don't know. I don't think guns should be illegal but I really am sick to death of criminals being better armed than the rest of us and I don't think an arms race between the criminals and law abiders helps anyone. Especially those caught in the cross-fire."

So do you advocate disarming the law-abiding citizen? Particulary when you feel the criminals are better armed.

"ANd by the way - lots of people prefer NOT to own guns or have them around - they have every right to feel that way AND to think that the NRA and gun-lovers often come off as zealots in their defense of the ability to shoot a bullet."

Lots of people prefer to arm themselves with any legal means available without having to ask an anti's permission. And the "gun lovers" have every right to feel that the gun haters come off as zealots in their defense of advocating victim disarmement and criminal enabling schemes.

[LemuelCalhoon]

Zach,

Do you honestly believe that the murder has gone up because people can once again buy an AR-15 with a flash hider and a bayonet lug where under the so-called assault weapons ban they could only buy AR-15's without flash hiders and bayonet lugs?

The drug lords of whom you speak are awash in money due to our society's foolish attempt to outlaw drugs. Do you seriously think that these rich criminals do not already have as many firearms as they want and need?

The bottom line on this is this: What if you were sitting in the library at Yale and a Virginia Tech style gunman burst in and began shooting your fellow students. In that moment would you not wish for a gun of your own with which to defend yourself?

How can you deny others what you would claim for yourself?

[Poli]

Perhaps Zach should get out on the streets and see first hand that drug kingpins are already armed to the teeth despite all of our nation's gun control laws.

Zach credits the Brady Law with the drop in crime from the 1990's. Our crime rates began dropping three years before that law was even passed. There is not one single independent academic study showing any gun control law to have had a positive impact at reducing crime including the Brady Law. Professor Phillip Cooke at Duke University, who is a big supporter of the Brady Law, published a study he performed on the Brady Law in the August 2004 editon of the Journal of the American Medical Association. He found the law to have no measurable impact on reducing crime. The National Insitutes of Justice found the same results on the so-called Assault Weapons Ban which banned semi-auto rifles and not automatic rifles. Murders with a rifle according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report amounted to 442 for 2005, and that includes ALL types of rifles. More people are killed with knives and blunt objects than rifles mislabeled as "assault weapons".

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html


When you disarm lawful citizens against violent criminals who are not deterred by gun control or any amount of laws, who is being protected and who is left vulnerable?

[Guav]

Yes, clearly what would prevent malicious crack kingpins from acquiring firearms are laws, since laws banning crack prevents them from selling drugs"an excellent strategy indeed.

Not to let facts get in the way of some old fashioned Pants-Shitting Hysterics, but Uzis are already completely illegal, and I"ve never seen anyone suggest that we should be giving Uzis to people.

Furthermore, the fully automatic Glock you posted a video to is only available to law enforcement and military personnel"not that I'd really expect you to know the difference between semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one bullet) and fully-automatic (machine guns).

[FilthyMcNasty]

Zach fails to note that the gun crime rate was already dropping 3 years before Brady. Also, the effects on gun crime we're minisule as a result of Brady & AWB.




"Repeat: there are more guns than people in the United States today (in a nation of 300 million or so). "

And where is this accurately documented??

"..we'd still have over 300 million guns (many of which are of the automatic rifle variety) scattered around the country."

Many? Just how many? Who has them? More comment without factual data to support it.


"The gun lobby and their allies in Congress have given the bad guys the upper hand."

Only in the eyes of a Brady sycophant.

"And the will of the people collectively would never allow a full ban on guns."

Hmm, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't allow it.

[BRed]

In theory, restricting access to CERTAIN TYPES, not all guns, makes a lot of sense.

However, its too late in my view for inch at a time restrictions to have any meaningful effect. We've been so lax (and in many ways, even encouraging) in how we regulate and distribute firearms and ammo in this country for so long that the number of guns in American is now larger than the number of people.

Repeat: there are more guns than people in the United States today (in a nation of 300 million or so).

So, facetiously, if we ban each and every type of gun from being manufactured and sold in the US tomorrow, we'd still have over 300 million guns (many of which are of the automatic rifle variety) scattered around the country.

I might even go buy a gun for protection. Not because I think it is a good idea on its face, but what choice do we have now? The gun lobby and their allies in Congress have given the bad guys the upper hand. Cynical politcs works, I guess.

And the will of the people collectively would never allow a full ban on guns.

[akhmed]

While there is conflicting data about the efficacy of gun control, a series of "common-sense" statements about gun violence (if root causes were so easy, we wouldn't have difficulty solving poverty and crime) and some questionable correlations with the crime figures in the '90's do not a persuasive argument make.

[Thirdpower]

It doesn't matter that the Glock was never available, it's the talking point that counts. The VPC specifically states on their website that they use misperceptions of firearms to push for anti-gun legislation.

Do you think that is ethically acceptable Zach?

[jbuist]

1) The AK video link returns a 404.

2) The Glock shown in the 3rd video was never available to the civilian market.

[breakfast]

When "law and order" breaks down some years hence, many of you anti-gun types will be glad, if not desperate, to get your hands on a gun. It may get ugly.

[1will]

It has already happened. Those stuck in New Orleans were happy to be armed and able to protect themselves. The exception would be those law abiding citizens that were illegaly disarmed by police officers.

[Thirdpower]

Actually, no, it has nothing to do w/ the lapse of the AWB as those types of firearms were still widely available (and became even more common) during that time. The only thing the AWB did was restrict certain cosmetic features on various semi-auto firearms that look liked military style weapons. Otherwise they functioned exactly like any other semi out there.

What it has more to do w/ is a decrease in funding for police forces, a minor economic recession, and more criminals getting out of jail due to short sentences for their crimes.

You say there are "no real restrictions". So you're saying that purchasers DON'T have to go through federal background checks? They DON'T have to provide information on themselves that's kept? What kind of "restrictions" would you like?

[oldpotsmuggler]

The one surefire way to put an end to all gun violence by crack kingpins, and not only in Philly but the entire country, is simply to legalize drugs. Problem solved over night.

Ask yourself if you would like to live in a free country. Now look around for definitions of "personal freedom" that say that it includes situations where adults are not allowed to make mistakes with their own lives in the areas of drugs, gambling, and prostitution. Back when I was hauling in the money in the pot business I had virtually unlimited access to every conceivable variety of controlled substance. Some I didn't like and didn't do. Many I used recreationally, and none of them did I allow myself to get addicted to or otherwise abuse. Furthermore, I was literally surrounded by people who approached things the same way. And some who didn't do well, but almost none who hurt themselves worse than prison hurts people.

[TexasDem0]

I agree to a point that legalizing some drugs would relieve the problem, but I believe that some drugs are too dangerous to be freely available. Part of the consideration for legalizing any drug has to be the ability of society to use it in a responsible manner. The overwhelming majority of people who drink alcohol do so responsibly. The same is true for over the counter pain killers and cold remedies. On the other hand, there is no way that crystal meth can be used responsibly, and no way it should ever be legalized.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Then we'll have Meth kingpins, a smaller version of the problem, but still the same problem. Besides, it seems like the more dangerous the drug, the more harm people are willing to cause in order to get the money to pay for it. The damage from prohibition is 100 times worse than the damage from all of the drugs put together.

[BlackJAC]

No, problem not solved overnight by legalizing drugs but rather new problems created. First, the obvious: the simple fact that we have drunk driving problems proves we can't be trusted with legal drugs. Second, the unexpected: as addicts make for poor insurrectionists, it actually benefits a dictatorship to legalize drugs.

[oldpotsmuggler]

How does it benefit a freedom loving people to take away the freedom to make mistakes?