Column by new Root Striker Shaquille Brisset.
Exclusive to STR
“You are incompetent. You are a tall, naive child, and you do not possess the wherewithal to be granted full autonomy. If not properly supervised, you may get hurt or hurt the other children. As loving guardians, we will be implementing a few measures to ensure your safety. From here on out, you are not to run with scissors, listen to your music above a certain volume, or stay out past seven on weeknights.”
Surprisingly, the paragraph above was intended for adults. A bit of hyperbole, yes, but it gets the point across: The Obama administration and its swath of gun control lobbyists believe it is our duty, as Children of the State, to relinquish our right of autonomy in order to ensure our safety. Apparently the acts of a few lunatics have caused all law-abiding citizens to forfeit their Second Amendment right. Look, I understand that events like the Sandy Hook shooting and the attack on Canada's Parliament conjure fear. I'm no robot; I have a loving family and friends and I, too, fear for their safety. But denying the rights of individuals to protect themselves in an effort to protect them sounds a bit asinine.
Gun control proposals appear fundamentally sound when etched on the yellow sheet in your legal notepad. No guns equals less violence, right? The problem is, however, that when implemented in the real world, these laws prove to be an abysmal means of preventing violence.
Gun control does not take weapons off the streets, it only leads to the centralization of gun ownership. Obviously by virtue of their occupation, criminals do not obey the law. They will keep their guns and the rest of us will be left defenseless. It doesn’t take a criminologist to realize this. Personally, I am curious as to whether or not these lobbyists have read of any of America's past experiments with gun control. Have they seen the evidence that leaves their points moot? Perhaps they think the statistics have been pulled out of thin air. Shall we simply ignore the fact that right-to-carry laws have lowered murder rates within states that have implemented those laws? Since implementing right-to-carry laws, Texas has seen a 30% drop in murders while Florida has enjoyed a 36% decrease. How delusional must someone be to attribute these decreases in crimes to mere coincidence?
By now, you’re probably experiencing that creeping feeling of cognitive dissonance, but since we are not little boys and girls, can we please employ a bit of pragmatism? Guns deter crime. Even with eyelids taped open, strapped to a chair in front of the flickering of an action movie marathon, one can attest to the fanciful notion of invulnerability. This is because people are biologically hardwired for self preservation. And guess what? Leaping head first into a hollow point bullet kind of goes against that programming. Criminals understand this. A study published in 2000 by the Journal of Quantitative Criminology revealed that Americans use guns to deter criminals 989,883 times per year. Most incidents end nonviolently. And the ones who choose not to make haste and ignore the whispers of their shoulder angel? Well, they learn the hard way. Recipient of the American Society of Criminology's Michael J. Hindelang Award, author and professor Gary Kleck estimates that around 8,000-16,000 intruders are incapacitated by gun owners every year.
Many proponents of “damsel in distress” tactics point to “successes” in foreign countries. These men and women, however, completely reject cultural relativism in their assessments. In his 1992 book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?, political science researcher and attorney Dave Kopel, writes, "Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos." Japan, for example, has very lax privacy rights when compared to the American standard. Rights for suspects and rights against self-incrimination are also few and far between. In Japan, citizens are regularly stopped and frisked by law enforcement. At their own discretion, Japanese law enforcement officers pay visits to people's private homes twice a year. Should we, as Americans, give up our right to privacy as well?
How much will we forfeit in the name of security? Today, our government seems poised to turn into the absolutist government of Hobbesian lore. And while I appreciate the constant reminders that the world is a scary place, I am a little skeptical about the sovereign’s ability to protect us. The police do not possess the power of omnipresence, so how can we expect total protection even in a Nanny State? I know law enforcement would have no qualms about checking beneath our beds and in our closets for monsters. However, think of the time that would take, the amount of personnel, the costs! I would hate for my neighbors to have to deal with the subsequent spike in taxes that would occur from such a practice, so I will do my part. I will alleviate the need for such a burden. So tonight, after I crawl into my footie pajamas, grab my bear, and turn on my little night light, I will cuddle up next to my Kimber 1911. After all, I am a big boy.
