[TargetTerror]

My grandfather is very liberal, and apparently an ardent fan of gun control. We had a small discussion last night, but I didn't say nearly what I wanted to and wrote him an email today. The broader issue was where we fall on the political spectrum, but below is the part on gun control.

Thoughts?

First, let's get the basic premise of gun control out on the table, so it can be properly critiqued: The general logic of gun control advocates is that guns cause crime, and that by making guns illegal, both gun crime and crime as a whole will be reduced. Protection to the individual is to be provided by the Police and the Military, and therefore they are the only entities that should have guns.

Both of these premises are flawed and incorrect. Regarding the first point, that guns cause crime, allow me to redirect you to a study done by Don B. Kates And Gary Mauser, and published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Click on this link:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

It is the most academic, objective piece on gun control I have ever read, and yes, it proves that less guns does not equal less death. Statistics and analysis in support of that statement are covered in depth in that article, so I won't reiterate them here.

All of that evidence supports the next major point which is that gun control laws target and affect ONLY law-abiding gun owners. That point is really the key to this entire issue, so read it again. Think of what happens when you ban guns. You remove any legal mechanism for ownership. That means that anyone who follows the law cannot buy or own guns, which removes from these people the most effective means of self defense (I'll deal with self defense below). Examples are always better than the abstract, so lets use me, since I am a law abiding gun owner. Ban guns, and you take away guns from me. That is how gun control works. Anytime you do an analysis of gun control, apply it to me and see if it makes you any safer.

But laws are only effective insofar that they are followed and upheld. Criminals, by definition, DO NOT follow or adhere to laws. That is why they are criminals. Yes, that sounds like typical NRA rhetoric, and indeed it is to an extent. But, once again, examples are always more poignant than the abstract, so I'll tell you about Chiara Levin.

She was my best friend's cousin. She was murdered in Dorchester (worst part of Boston) last March – shot in the head. I was actually with her, two of her friends, and our mutual friend that night. We went to a club, and then disbanded when the club closed. Chiara was invited by a stranger to a party in Dorchester, and she and here two friends went. As they were leaving, and she was sitting in the car, the person they came with got into a fight with someone else at the party and gunshots were exchanged (from handguns). She got hit by a stray bullet in the head.

Last I heard, they had a suspect in custody, who was 19 years old. He is a known gang member with a police record. In Massachusetts, you must have a license to own a handgun, and a license to carry concealed (there is no open carry in Massachusetts). You are only eligible for licenses when you are 21, and Boston does not issue any carry permits (which it is allowed to discriminate in since Massachusetts is a "may issue" state). Moreover, anytime anyone legally purchases a gun, the gun dealer is required to check your permit and then call your name into the FBI for a quick background check. You are also not allowed to discharge a firearm within city limits, attempt to kill someone, or kill someone.

So, in sum, this suspect was not old enough to own a handgun, would not have been issued a concealed license even if he was old enough (he lives in Boston), was ineligible to own a firearm due to his record, knowingly violated all of these laws regarding illegal gun ownership, knowingly discharged said gun within the city limits, attempted to murder someone and did, in fact, murder someone. How would further restrictions on legal gun ownership have had ANY impact whatsoever on this situation? How does infringing upon MY legal ability to own, possess, or carry a gun in any way serve to prevent this situation in the future?

Lets take another example, which demonstrates why gun control is so counterproductive. I'm sure you've read about the Heller case that the Supreme Court is going to hear in the spring. It is regarding the Constitutionality of D.C.'s handgun ban and effective ban on the use of any gun in self defense (you must keep all long guns disassembled in DC, which of course negates any ability to realistically defend yourself with said gun). One of the Plaintiffs is a woman living in D.C. who tried to get a handgun permit, but was of course denied because D.C. has ceased giving out new handgun permits. The reason she wanted a gun was because she lived in a very bad area of town, with drug dealers living and dealing right on her block. She had reported him to the police, and he had threatened her. She wanted the gun for self defense.

This conveniently brings us right into the next major point, which is the issue of self defense v. protection by the government. Take the case of the woman I mentioned in the above paragraph, as it is excellent for this analysis. You see her position – she is a law abiding citizen that wants to live in the house she has lived in for years without fear of crime or injury. She now has a threat from a known criminal to her safety. What is she to do?

1) She can call the police, but they are a responsive force, not a preventive force (I'll deal with that below). At best, they might be able to get the dealer for some very minor "threat" offense, depending upon what is on the books in D.C. I haven't studied such laws, so I don't know the full scoop on them. But, even assuming that he was locked up, he will be out in a fairly short time, and now be REALLY pissed at this lady because she had him jailed.

2) She can get a restraining order. A restraining order is a piece of paper that says "(Bad Guy), stay X number of feet away from this innocent victim or we'll put you in a jail for a few weeks." Murder, rape, robbery, assault, battery are all felonies, and have jail terms of YEARS. If someone is not persuaded by the punishment for these crimes, the threat of a restraining order is laudable at best. As for when they actually try to harm their victim, hitting them with a piddily piece of paper will not afford them much protection.

3) Then there is the police. The police are under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO PROTECT ANY CITIZEN FROM ANY THREAT. EVER. Read that again. And again, until it sinks in. In the case of this lady above, if the dealer comes to attack her and she dials 911, the 911 operator is not required to transfer her to police, answer any questions, or do anything at all. This lady would have no recourse against the 911 operator. And, in fact, there are NUMEROUS examples of where calling 911 results in either a busy signal or a hold. Yup, think about that. Someone is trying to harm you, and you are on hold with 911. It DOES happen, so don't dismiss it as an anomaly. If she did get in touch with the police, they are under no obligation to come to her aid. None. And she would have no recourse against them either. But all of this is irrelevant anyways. Even if she got through to 911 immediately, and an officer was dispatched within 20 seconds, he wouldn't be on scene for another few minutes AT BEST. How many seconds do you think it takes an attacker to get from your front door to your room if they want to harm you? She would be harmed LONG before the police ever arrived.