Fear of Gun Crime: Deeper Than Any Set of Statistics
People feel threatened by crime these days because their instincts and experiences tell them they are not safe. And they are not calmed by recent crime statistics that suggest a 3% drop in serious crimes and a 1% drop in violent crimes. They just do not believe the figures; they believe their instincts. They believe something has gone wrong with America: There is too much serious, and violent, crime.
This is why liberals and conservatives, to some extent, are coming together on the crime issue. The liberals emphasize crime prevention; the conservatives emphasize punishment. But more and more wise members of each camp are agreeing to agree that America needs more of both. As a result gun control is no longer simply the cause of liberals alone. Even some conservatives recognize that the absolute freedom to possess guns is no more sensible than the absolute freedom to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. They recognize that no responsible society would require licensing and testing for automobile operation but nothing comparable for gun ownership.
Even Congress, though well policed by the National Rifle Assn. and traditionally resistant to gun-control measures, passed the Brady bill last year and looks to be close to enacting a historic federal ban on 19 varieties of semiautomatic assault weapons. And in the next week or so the House, led by Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), will make a run at limiting handgun sales. Schumer’s efforts fully deserve support.
Last fall, when The Times published the first in a series of editorials spelling out a comprehensive plan for severely limiting gun possession, it received an avalanche of letters in response--more mail over a single editorial than in anyone’s recent memory. Even more tellingly, only half of the letter writers opposed our stand, suggesting that the organized letter campaign that inevitably stalks any gun-control proposal was at least equaled by the unorganized voices of ordinary, concerned readers.
And the tide toward effective gun control won’t calm down soon. Gun control is increasingly seen not as some fuzzy, do-good Utopian vision but as a practical anti-crime step. Sure, there are many ways to kill the guy next to you, but you have to hand it to a gun: It surely does the job. Yes, people--not guns on their own--kill people. But guns multiply the carnage, make the violence easier, swifter, more deadly.
If further proof were necessary, the Justice Department reported last Sunday that U.S. handgun crime was 50% higher last year than the average of the five previous years; handguns were involved in 980,7000 violent crimes and 917,500 nonfatal ones. Tragically, black males between 16 and 19 were the most likely targets of handgun crimes. And last year, compared to the previous five years, handgun homicides increased 25%.
No doubt The Times’ call for a near-comprehensive ban on guns, with special procedures available for collectors, hunters, target practice aficionados and the like, struck some readers as controversial, maybe even far out. But with each new violent month, this approach, or something like it, will seem a lot less far out. Still, many readers wonder:
1. Whether Gun-Control Advocates Think That Gun Control Might Prove to Be Some Kind of Cure-All.
That’s not the case at all. Crime is a complex problem--with roots in the social and economic system. Even if every gun were removed from our society, we would still have crime. But the presence of all these guns--heck, kids take them from the home and carry them to school nowadays--adds to crime. With firearms under tighter control, crime would not disappear but it would be less violent. And gun accidents--a major problem--would be reduced.
2. Whether Gun-Control Advocates Understand That Even Under Gun Control, the Bad Guys Would Have Guns.
What we propose is not some snap new legislation that would magnetically suck guns away from the gangs, the street, the home overnight. It is a call to America to change a long-established direction. A polyglot nation of 250 million people simply cannot handle all these guns on the streets; and the police simply are swamped by the gun-driven crime problem (which is why so many law enforcement groups now favor gun control). Yes, some bad guys would manage to get guns under comprehensive gun control. But an America that is intolerant of guns--like most other civilized nations in Europe and Asia--would at least make it a whole lot harder for anyone to be carrying a gun on the street, to work or to school.
3. Whether Gun-Control Types Respect the Second Amendment.
They do, but the Second Amendment is not an absolute license to carry a gun. The amendment was designed to allow states to maintain their own militias, not to allow individuals to build their own private arsenals. The amendment was aimed at balancing the military power of the federal government. At the time, people first and foremost feared the unchecked power of a cruel central government--basically the European experience.
Not surprisingly, then, since 1939 no federal court has found gun-control laws to be in violation of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the proposition that this amendment does not guarantee individuals a right to keep and bear arms for private, non-military purposes is among the more firmly established propositions in U.S. constitutional law.
Yes, citizens do have rights. But, as the latest report on handgun violence shows, America has not been acting responsibly with guns. That absolutely must change.