Posted by
Steve on Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:53:25 PM
Nationally there are events in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri for the politicians running for President. Romney is way ahead in polling in Colorado. Santorum is holding slim leads in Minnesota and Missouri. Newt Gingrich is not even on the Missouri ballot. That is no way to run a campaign and be taken seriously.
Here in Arizona, the leading discussion is the bill in the legislature to allow firearms on college campuses. Predictably the debate has broken down into two camps. The gun control crowd and the 2nd amendment supporters are dominating the debate.
For the gun control supporters the debate is simple. They believe that more guns will equal more crime and shootings on campus. The gun control supporters believe that allowing guns on campus will create a Wild West atmosphere and people will be shooting each other every day.
What gun control supporters fail to do is distinguish between law abiding gun owners from law breaking gun owners. The difference is critical. If all gun owners were law breakers then their analysis would have some merit. More law breaking gun owners would equal more crime and shootings. But that is not what the bill will do. The bill will allow law abiding gun owners to bring guns on campus. Law abiding gun owners will do just that, abide by the law. They will not commit crimes. They will not take guns out and shoot people for no reason. They are law abiding because they have a value system that will not allow them to do that.
In every city that made gun laws stricter so that gun ownership is more difficult, they saw an increase in all crimes. The increase was particularly noticeable in crimes that involve guns. In every city that relaxed gun laws to allow more concealed carry permits, the violent crimes decreased, particularly those involving guns. Did all gun crimes stop? No, but their rate decreased dramatically.
What is the reason for the decrease when guns are more available? Criminals have this condition called the will to live. If they know there are no weapons in an area, they feel safe. If they feel safe, they are more likely to commit a crime involving a weapon. If they fear that the people in the area are armed, they will be less likely to commit a gun crime. The reason is simply self-preservation. That is why states with the death penalty generally have lower violent crimes than states with only life without parole.
The Chancellor of our district says there are no studies showing that allowing guns on campus will reduce violent crime. That is most likely true. Guns are outlawed on every educational campus in the United States. When a gun is brought onto one of those campuses, even by mistake, everyone goes ballistic. But I am not aware of any studies that will determine if allowing guns on campus will reduce incidents of violence or whether they will increase incidents of violence. The only evidence we have are cities that have tried adding or removing guns and their results. That evidence should be transferrable, though the scale would be different.
The one thing this issue will not get is a rational discussion from the gun control crowd. They have their minds made up that guns are the guilty party and nothing anyone can show them will change their minds. The data that shows that crime goes down when guns are more plentiful will go right over their head. The data that shows that crime goes up when guns are restricted will also be beyond their understanding. So, we will be left with the usual debate, one side using logic and the other side responding with hysteria. Let’s hope that logic comes out on top this time.