Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that owning a firearm is an individual right. Gun control advocates have often said that the Second Amendment is about state militias and not about individuals. The nine judges opposed that view 5-4. If you get a chance read the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia. He makes reading the decision entertaining. Especially, when he takes his fellow justices to task over their views. You can read it here.
I never understood the position of gun control advocates. Why would a government grant itself the right to arm its own military?
Some would say that they are granting that right to the states. If that's the case why didn't they say "states" in the Second Amendment and not "people." In the Bill of Rights, the term "people" is used in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments in addition to the Second Amendment. People will argue that in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments people meant...well people, but in the same breath they'll say that "people" in the Second Amendment means the state organized militia. There is a disconnect there I simply cannot understand. This is especially true when you read the Tenth Amendment where they specify the states. Justice Scalia doesn't seem to understand that line of thinking either.
The reaction from big city mayors was unsurprising. They warned of dire consequences if this ruling, which thus far only applies to the Federal Government, is "incorporated" to apply to the states. They warned of old west style shootouts. News flash mayors. Only law abiding citizens obey the law. The criminals? They carry guns anyway. Even if guns were somehow banned and collected in the US how long do you think it would take until more guns showed up?
We are living in the same country that can't keep illegal immigrants from crossing our southern border and can't keep obvious illegal copies of all sorts of trademarks, patents and copyrights out of our ports. Guns might be a bit more expensive, but the bad guys will still get them.
Worse, the good guys won't have them to defend themselves. Worse yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that public safety institutions, like the police, have no obligation to protect an individual. Their obligation is to the community, not the individual. (They ruled this way so that when you're killed while on the phone with 911, your family can't sue the government for failing to protect you. It's harsh. It's sad. But it's true.)
In 1976 Washington DC had 188 murders. 1976 was the year the DC handgun was enacted. Murders in DC spiked during the ban in 1991 with 482 murders. Last year was one of four years where the number of murders were less than the number in 1976 with 169 murders. The other three years were 1983, 1984 and 1985. Given the number of murders it is unsurprising to find DC's population has seen a steady decrease since 1968. That means the murder rate has actually increased since the handgun ban! Yet, Mayor Fenty is arguing that this ruling will make DC's streets unsafe! See here.
Chicago has similar numbers. Murders did fall both in sheer number and in rate following the 1981 handgun ban. But then the number of murders and the murder rate spiked again in the early 90s. That is about the same time we see a spike in DC murders. Both bans had been in effect for a decade or more at the time of the early 90s spike. Both cities had another spike in murders in the late 70s and the early 80s. Only one city had a ban, but both cities spiked. Perhaps there was a reason, other than guns, accounting for the increase in crime? Hmm?
No comments:
Post a Comment