 |
 |
This argument ignores that, in the absence of guns, the younger, more agile, and/or physically stronger criminal has much less difficulty in overpowering his victim, particularly if the victim is elderly or disabled. This is certainly true in the case where there are multiple assailants, since, in the absence of firearms, there is no way for the physically weaker to overcome strength in numbers (see 1.1.a). While the existence of guns no doubt enables people who might not otherwise easily commit violence to do so, it also increases the ability of victims to resist violent attacks, when they might not otherwise be able to do so effectively. Guns are indeed "the great equalizer," and removing them from the hands of the public at large returns us at best to the "law of the jungle," where the weaker are prey to the stronger; and at worst affects only the law-abiding, leaving criminals to obtain guns by illegal means which they can then use with impunity against the otherwise defenseless (see 3.8). Proficiency with firearms is no guarantee of survival for potential victims of crime, but it is surely better than submission to the mercy of criminals, especially when that submission is compelled by government through "gun control" laws (see 1.1). Crime is not random, and criminal predators often choose the weakest among us for their prey, attacking in groups to better their chances of success. Guns may increase the lethality of crime, but for whom? The criminals, who have youth and strength and their partners in crime on their side, and who could kill by any number of means without a firearm? Or the victims of crime, who all too often lack any other means to resist?
REFERENCES
The Citizen's Guide to Gun Control, by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, Macmillan, ISBN 0-02-934830-7 (1987) [The authors present their case in favor of "gun control," based in part upon the lethality of firearms, termed the "instrumentality effect" in the study of violence. Though somewhat dated, and factually incorrect regarding a few issues (notably the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, the concept of "stopping power," and the notion that the majority of homicides are committed by individuals without prior histories of violence), the book offers a reasoned (rather than paranoiac) airing of the anti-gun viewpoint.]
