No, not Christian faith. I’m talking about the faith in an ideology of liberalism in the face of facts to the contrary.
Seven years ago, Michigan made is substantially easier to obtain a concealed weapon permit. At the time, opponents warned of mass increases in violence, deadly road rage as a daily occurrence, and more suicides and accidents.
Well, there was an increase in the number of concealed weapon permits – a six-fold increase. As for the crime, accident, suicide, and violence rates?
They all decreased. Markedly.
Now, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But that doesn’t mean the correlation can’t have a causal relationship, either, and there are a great many studies to support the notion that a well armed populace results in a decrease in violent crime.
What’s more, because the individual is sovereign, and sovereignty by any definition includes the right to defend yourself, free people have a right to carry weapons – a right derived from the same place our natural rights to life, liberty, and property are derived from. If you don’t have the right to defend your life or your property, you can’t be said to really have those rights. And that’s why gun ownership is a core conservative issue. Even if the crime rates didn’t decrease, the value of freedom must always be factored in.
But what really caught my attention was this quote from one of the opponents of the original expansion of the permit process. This is where “Faith” comes in.
Shikha Hamilton of Grosse Pointe, president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March, said she believes overall gun violence (including suicide and accidental shootings) is up in Michigan since 2001. Many incidents involving CCW permit holders have not been widely reported, she said.
She “believes.” She has no facts to support her contention – in fact, the available data suggests she is flat wrong, and always has been. But nonetheless, she “believes”. She has faith in the Creed of Gun Control, which says that citizens can’t be trusted to defend themselves, because if given the means, they will immediately descend into mindless, violent, murderous animals with no self control. She believes that if the stats don’t back her preconceived notion, there must be a media conspiracy to cover up the truth. And she believes that even if she IS wrong on the facts, it doesn’t matter, because she has faith beyond mere fact that banning guns will eliminate violent crime.
Blind faith – in any religion – is not enough to demand people give up their God-given liberty, sovereignty, or right to defend themselves. That goes double for when that faith’s tenants fly in the face of actual facts.
Do you believe that the general public needs to be granted the right to have & carry weapons like a Kel-Tec Semi-Automatic Sub Rifle, or an HK 51?
I agree that gun control laws as it pertains to hand guns that may actually be used realistically to protect ones self are alrgely a waste of time–if only because those who carry guns to commit crimes (ie, break the law) are not likely to care that much what a gun control law says.
But for some of the whackos that think they need to have access to an M4 Carbine with armor piercing ammo to shoot bambi, that seems a little excess (and yes, I realize that the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 severly limits the ownership of some weapons like the M4–but I’m too lazy to look up another model that is a more realistic example, so you’re going to have to go with me here). If you’re that bad of a shot, take up a new hobby.
Also, as for the causal/non-causal relationship, I have a hard time believing that just the thought that more people might be carrying guns is solely responsible for the drop in violent crime. It may have played a role, but I would guess there almost has to be other factors as well, over that time frame.
Now, if there are other states that have seen similar results, I’ll start to put even more faith in the argument. But I still would argue against civilians who claim they need an M60 with armor piercing rounds for hunting or protection. Unless they’re hunting the famed American Rhinoceros.
“Do you believe that the general public needs to be granted the right to have & carry weapons like a Kel-Tec Semi-Automatic Sub Rifle, or an HK 51?”
No. I believe the general public already HAS that right, granted from God and protected in the constitution. Government generally doesn’t “grant” rights, it either protects ones that already exist or takes them away.
The burden of proof is on the government to show WHY natural rights should be restricted. I agree that most of us don’t NEED an uzi, but so what? I don’t NEED a TV, either, but I’d be awfully annoyed if the government told me I couldn’t have one because it was for my own good. If government wants to take our rights away, THEY should have to definitively prove that there is a compelling need, not the other way around.
An armed society is a free society. To me, it doesn’t even matter that the crime rates dropped so substantially – even if they are unchanged, there is still great value in being able to adequately defend yourself.
When there are correlative rises in violence with CCWs that are shown to be causal, talk to me, but so far no data out there that I’ve seen definitively backs that up. Most critiques of studies such as Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime focus on other variables that explain the correlative drop in crime.
The fact that MORE gun ownership seems to correlate strongly with a decrease in crime further boosts the idea that respecting our natural rights isn’t just the right thing to do because our liberty itself has intrinsic worth; it’s also the best mechanism for having a safe, prosperous, and free nation.
Where then, to draw the line? By the same logic, we all have the natural right to nuclear weapons.
Toonces (unless I misread him) is merely arguing that there is an appropriate line “somewhere” in terms of the weapons that the general public should be allowed to possess. Orrin’s response fails to make any attempt to define such a line.
I agree that there is a line, but the burden is on the government to show why there is a compelling state interest that justifies abridging rights of self defense. Nukes meet that standard, because of their vast destructive potential, problems with storage, lack of ANY other purpose (can’t go shoot skeet with a nuke), and national security implications.
My point is that gun control advocates (at least in MI) want to ban guns not because there is a good reason for it grounded in fact, but because they feel that guns are bad and should be banned for our own good.
No one is arguing that point– the illogical stance of the MI advocates.
Toonces seemed to be asking if, and possibly where, you might draw a line on the weapons that should be available to the public. Alluding to the point that there are similar zealots on the opposite side, those who believe the public has a right to a wide range of weapons. The oft-stated argument is that, if the masses are to overthrow a repressive government, they then need to be as well armed.
In regards to the casual relationship, it is noteworthy that violent crime dropped nationwide during that period…
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Agreed that crime is down nationwide. I would also note that in that time, gun control has essentially been abandoned as a political issue by Democrats – even John Kerry was trying to assert how pro-gun he was.
The line should be drawn where it is drawn in almost all other instances where a fundamental right is abridged – the government must prove that there is a compelling state interest that justifies the abridgment. That’s how “fighting words” are justifiably banned, and how affirmative action survives an Equal Protection analysis (wrongly, in my view).
It’s not enough to DISprove a causal link between lower crime and more guns. The government must prove the opposite – that more guns necessarily leads to a significant increase in crime.
The point is – and here is my beef with Toonces’ post – is that government doesn’t GRANT fundamental rights, it can only protect ones that already exist.
When it comes to bazookas, tanks, fighter jets, or even “assault weapons,” the analysis must be the same. You can make a fair argument either way, I think, for a lot of military hardware. I think military rifles (even large caliber ones) cannot be outlawed on that analysis.
The line will always be somewhat elastic, depending on what judges are on the bench. But the entering argument must always be the same – that weapons are legal until the state proves that there is a compelling reason to restrict them, with more evidence than the “feelings” of an activist in Grosse Point, Michigan.