Guns Save Lives
Opinion Editorial by John Stossel -
Feb 28, 2008
34 ratings from readers
How many public shootings will it take before we understand that murderers are undeterred by "gun free" zones? The best deterrent is always a would-be victim who is trained in self-defense — with a gun.
It’s all too predictable. A day
after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois
University, The New York Times criticized
the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in
national parks.
The editorial board wants “the
51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks — and everywhere else, it
seems — to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by
carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth.”
As usual, the Times
editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is
between “carefully controlling guns” and “arming everyone to the teeth.” But no
one favors “arming everyone to the teeth” (whatever that means).
Instead, gun advocates favor
freedom, choice, and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to
defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive
others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.
As for the first option, “carefully
controlling guns,” how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before
we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last
I checked, murder is against the law everywhere.
No one intent on murder will be
stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of
a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about
controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.
While they search for — excuse
me — their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.
That’s because laws that make
it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of
people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws
are laws against self-defense.
Criminals have the initiative.
They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make
choices that maximize their own, not their victims’, success.
So criminals don’t attack
people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is
likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.
Government may promise to
protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was
neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: “Dial 911 and Die.” If you are
the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be
on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.
How, then, does it make sense
to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?
The usual suspects keep calling
for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is
just a myth.
The National Academy of
Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation
that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C.,
passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.
The press ignores the fact that
often guns save lives.
It’s what happened in 2002 at
the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars,
got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.
Likewise, law professor Glen
Reynolds writes, “Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when
the school’s vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In
(last) February’s Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who
happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun.”
It’s impossible to know exactly
how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don’t usually report crimes
that don’t happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato
Institute’s Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his
life.
“It equalizes unequals,” Palmer
told “20/20.”
“If someone gets into your
house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone?
“You can call the police if you
want, and they’ll get there, and they’ll take a picture of your dead body. But
they can’t get there in time to save your life.
“The first line of defense is
you.”
John
Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News’ “20/20” and the author of Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media (January 2005) as well as Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the
Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong (May 2007), which is now available in paperback.