December 26, 2012

The Oppressive Appeal of “Less Crime”

By Pavel Konoplenko

In the wake of the recent shooting in New York that left two firefighters dead and two wounded, people are once again having a conversation about guns, role of media, mental health, and the moral state of our society. This is a very complex and political issue that requires more than a simple blog post. I will, however, examine one point of contention that I hear cited – and challenged – often: More guns means less crime.

I have not read the book and haven’t personally researched or verified the studies that are presented. However, for purpose of this thought experiment, let us assume that this correlation is in fact true. (It’s also important to note that correlation does not mean causation, because we would then easily assume that nations without easy access to guns have skyrocketing crime rates and all the ills associated with crime.)

Thought Experiment

More guns means less crime. Sounds simple. Yet the simplest phrases can usually be the most complex. What is less crime? Is less crime necessarily a good thing? Depends on the definition of crime and our association with it. For instance, would I rather live in a nation with a lot of burglaries but no murder, or in a nation with a lot of murder but no burglaries? I don’t know.

Less crime sounds appealing, but under the context of nation where the entire populace is armed, it can quickly lose that appeal. In 1984, Oceania had no crime at all – with the exception of thought-crime. However, that dystopian society possesses little appeal when examined in a broader context.

I don’t know if I want to live in a society where everyone is armed. Self-defense isn’t considered a crime, but where’s the line between self-defense and unnecessary force? What’s the difference between shooting someone once under self-defense or shooting 5 times? After how many murders committed by one person in “self-defense” do we examine that person’s history and pattern of “self-defense” murders?

Maybe a society where everyone has a gun would be crime-free, but people would live with the inherent tension, fear, and stress that everyone they see can easily and efficiently kill. Is this oppression by lethal individuals worth having zero crime?

These are all important questions to ask during these debates, because no matter what course of action we take (that is if we take any action), it will inevitably lead to more questions down the line.

Are senseless murders the price we pay to defend that right? Where do security and rights meet? Does defense of private property warrant the same action as the defense of your body? Questions are easy to come up, it’s the answers that are hard.

Whatever answers we come up with, hopefully it leaves the world a better, safer place.

http://nyctalking.com/ Angel Rodriguez

There is no easy answer to this. Personally I don’t think everyone and anyone should have access to guns. I think there should be restrictions on how to get guns. As much as I hate that I can’t carry in NYC, I do appreciate that they are very strict about handing out permits. At least we know the government isn’t allowing just any psychos to carry a gun.

Although, that being said criminals have and will always carry guns in NYC. I think though, that if they just “didn’t know” who was packing heat, they’d be less reluctant to rob and commit crimes.

Do I want a society where every single citizen is armed? Hell no, especially in NYC. Do I want one where whoever chooses to be armed is? Yes, provided they receive the proper screening in advance to determine stability, temper, etc.
- http://pavelnovel.com/ Pavel Konoplenko
  
  Good point. Sorry this comment will be long:
  
  It’s very true that criminals who want access to guns will have an easy time getting it – especially given the black market, trafficking etc (that’s why there’s talks of increasing penalties for criminal gun trafficking, whether that’ll help is unclear).
  
  I want anyone who carries a gun to have proper psychological and physical testing. I want them trained too in how to handle the gun and keep it safe (I want them to know how to store it from curious children who may be visiting even if they don’t have kids themselves). I want them trained too because if the situation arises when they need to use their weapon to protect themselves or someone else during a crime in progress. That way they can hit the victim, disarm him, without hitting innocent bystanders. If they don’t know how to use a gun well, the criminal will shoot back and exacerbate the situation (also will it be possible for a burglar to claim self-defense in shooting back because his life was threatened?)
  
  Now if we agree that those conditions are favorable to protecting society, what’s the difference between them and police officers? I feel safer in the presence of one police than in the presence of 10 strangers with guns. I don’t know who’s the crazed vigilante, I don’t know who’s had a bad last few months, I don’t know who knows how to use a gun, and I don’t know who forgot to put their gun on safety. But one police officer is trained, can deliver first aid, call for back up, and a criminal is a lot less likely to shoot an officer than a random person because the penalties and investigation will be a lot more tougher and thorough.
  
  So the question goes back to, why are we placing our society’s safety in the hands of untrained strangers?
  
  If you want a gun in your house to protect your family, by all means yes. But I do not and cannot feel comfortable if 25% (heck, even 10%) of the people I see on my morning commute carrying heat.
  
  Would you want your loved one to get into a shootout with a criminal to protect their wallet? I don’t if I have the “balls” to even start shooting someone if they’re robbing because I know if they have a gun and they’re robbing someone, they will hesitate to shoot a lot less than me. and those few seconds will be crucial, especially if they feel THEIR life is at stake when I pull out my gun. (plus if a criminal is committing a crime with a gun.)
  
  I’m not saying we need more police presence either. Again sorry for the length. It’s a very interesting topic to think about because security is one of the biggest advantages of societies forming, and guns seem to both add to security and threaten it. Maybe I’ll write another post titled “The Paradox of Guns.”