19 year article from NY Times Post Magazine titled " Just Take away their Guns"

[vinnyg101]

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/20/magazine/just-take-away-their-guns.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm[/URL]
========

JUST TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS
By James Q. Wilson
Published: March 20, 1994

THE PRESIDENT WANTS STILL tougher gun control legislation and thinks it will work. The public supports more gun control laws but suspects they won't work. The public is right.

Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns. There are some 200 million guns in private ownership, about one-third of them handguns. Only about 2 percent of the latter are employed to commit crimes. It would take a Draconian, and politically impossible, confiscation of legally purchased guns to make much of a difference in the number used by criminals. Moreover, only about one-sixth of the handguns used by serious criminals are purchased from a gun shop or pawnshop. Most of these handguns are stolen, borrowed or obtained through private purchases that wouldn't be affected by gun laws.

What is worse, any successful effort to shrink the stock of legally purchased guns (or of ammunition) would reduce the capacity of law-abiding people to defend themselves. Gun control advocates scoff at the importance of self-defense, but they are wrong to do so. Based on a household survey, Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, has estimated that every year, guns are used -- that is, displayed or fired -- for defensive purposes more than a million times, not counting their use by the police. If his estimate is correct, this means that the number of people who defend themselves with a gun exceeds the number of arrests for violent crimes and burglaries.

The available evidence supports the claim that self-defense is a legitimate form of deterrence. People who report to the National Crime Survey that they defended themselves with a weapon were less likely to lose property in a robbery or be injured in an assault than those who did not defend themselves. Statistics have shown that would-be burglars are threatened by gun-wielding victims about as many times a year as they are arrested (and much more often than they are sent to prison) and that the chances of a burglar being shot are about the same as his chances of going to jail. Criminals know these facts even if gun control advocates do not and so are less likely to burgle occupied homes in America than occupied ones in Europe, where the residents rarely have guns.

Some gun control advocates may concede these points but rejoin that the cost of self-defense is self-injury: Handgun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or their loved ones than a criminal. Not quite. Most gun accidents involve rifles and shotguns, not handguns. Moreover, the rate of fatal gun accidents has been declining while the level of gun ownership has been rising. There are fatal gun accidents just as there are fatal car accidents, but in fewer than 2 percent of the gun fatalities was the victim someone mistaken for an intruder.

Those who urge us to forbid or severely restrict the sale of guns ignore these facts. Worse, they adopt a position that is politically absurd. In effect, they say, "Your government, having failed to protect your person and your property from criminal assault, now intends to deprive you of the opportunity to protect yourself."

Opponents of gun control make a different mistake. The National Rifle Association and its allies tell us that "guns don't kill, people kill" and urge the Government to punish more severely people who use guns to commit crimes. Locking up criminals does protect society from future crimes, and the prospect of being locked up may deter criminals. But our experience with meting out tougher sentences is mixed. The tougher the prospective sentence the less likely it is to be imposed, or at least to be imposed swiftly. If the Legislature adds on time for crimes committed with a gun, prosecutors often bargain away the add-ons; even when they do not, the judges in many states are reluctant to impose add-ons.

Worse, the presence of a gun can contribute to the magnitude of the crime even on the part of those who worry about serving a long prison sentence. Many criminals carry guns not to rob stores but to protect themselves from other armed criminals. Gang violence has become more threatening to bystanders as gang members have begun to arm themselves. People may commit crimes, but guns make some crimes worse. Guns often convert spontaneous outbursts of anger into fatal encounters. When some people carry them on the streets, others will want to carry them to protect themselves, and an urban arms race will be underway.

OUR GOAL SHOULD NOT BE THE disarming of law-abiding citizens. It should be to reduce the number of people who carry guns unlawfully, especially in places -- on streets, in taverns -- where the mere presence of a gun can increase the hazards we all face. The most effective way to reduce illegal gun-carrying is to encourage the police to take guns away from people who carry them without a permit. This means encouraging the police to make street frisks.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution bans "unreasonable searches and seizures." In 1968 the Supreme Court decided (Terry v. Ohio) that a frisk -- patting down a person's outer clothing -- is proper if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is armed and dangerous. If a pat-down reveals an object that might be a gun, the officer can enter the suspect's pocket to remove it. If the gun is being carried illegally, the suspect can be arrested.

The reasonable-suspicion test is much less stringent than the probable-cause standard the police must meet in order to make an arrest. A reasonable suspicion, however, is more than just a hunch; it must be supported by specific facts. The courts have held, not always consistently, that these facts include someone acting in a way that leads an experienced officer to conclude criminal activity may be afoot; someone fleeing at the approach of an officer; a person who fits a drug courier profile; a motorist stopped for a traffic violation who has a suspicious bulge in his pocket; a suspect identified by a reliable informant as carrying a gun. The Supreme Court has also upheld frisking people on probation or parole.

Some police departments frisk a lot of people, but usually the police frisk rather few, at least for the purpose of detecting illegal guns. In 1992 the police arrested about 240,000 people for illegally possessing or carrying a weapon. This is only about one-fourth as many as were arrested for public drunkenness. The average police officer will make no weapons arrests and confiscate no guns during any given year. Mark Moore, a professor of public policy at Harvard University, found that most weapons arrests were made because a citizen complained, not because the police were out looking for guns.

It is easy to see why. Many cities suffer from a shortage of officers, and even those with ample law-enforcement personnel worry about having their cases thrown out for constitutional reasons or being accused of police harassment. But the risk of violating the Constitution or engaging in actual, as opposed to perceived, harassment can be substantially reduced.

Each patrol officer can be given a list of people on probation or parole who live on that officer's beat and be rewarded for making frequent stops to insure that they are not carrying guns. Officers can be trained to recognize the kinds of actions that the Court will accept as providing the "reasonable suspicion" necessary for a stop and frisk. Membership in a gang known for assaults and drug dealing could be made the basis, by statute or Court precedent, for gun frisks.

And modern science can be enlisted to help. Metal detectors at airports have reduced the number of airplane bombings and skyjackings to nearly zero. But these detectors only work at very close range. What is needed is a device that will enable the police to detect the presence of a large lump of metal in someone's pocket from a distance of 10 or 15 feet. Receiving such a signal could supply the officer with reasonable grounds for a pat-down. Underemployed nuclear physicists and electronics engineers in the post-cold-war era surely have the talents for designing a better gun detector.

Even if we do all these things, there will still be complaints. Innocent people will be stopped. Young black and Hispanic men will probably be stopped more often than older white Anglo males or women of any race. But if we are serious about reducing drive-by shootings, fatal gang wars and lethal quarrels in public places, we must get illegal guns off the street. We cannot do this by multiplying the forms one fills out at gun shops or by pretending that guns are not a problem until a criminal uses one.
James Q. Wilson is a professor of public policy at U.C.L.A. His most recent book is "The Moral Sense."

[ShooterInPA1]

Change this:

Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns.

to this:

Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of cars will have little effect on the illegal use of cars.

Imagine trying to ban cars for sober people because of drunk driving accidents. How is this any different?

[Yellowfin]

Imagine trying to ban cars for sober people because of drunk driving accidents. How is this any different?

Because NYC media and academic leftists don't hate people who drive cars.

[BSH]

Change this:

Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns.

to this:

Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of cars will have little effect on the illegal use of cars.

Imagine trying to ban cars for sober people because of drunk driving accidents. How is this any different?

But, but, cars aren't built for the sole purpose of killing people!

[streaker69]

But, but, cars aren't built for the sole purpose of killing people!

I think that depends upon the car.

[GeneCC]

But, but, cars aren't built for the sole purpose of killing people!

Neither are most firearms in civilian hands... my 30-06 is meant for punching paper and hunting deer and lacks any decent military features found on today's sniper rifles. The 22 LR target rifle I use routinely isn't intended for "killing people" either.

Modern military arms are rated in terms of "Incapacitation criteria, usually either "Ninety second Defense" or "Ninety Second Offense". Depends upon the part of the operation that you're doing. The round and firearm is intended to cause a person ON AVERAGE to be incapable of either Offensive or Defensive reactions within ninety seconds.


Cars, on the other, are great for killing people. The US looses over 30,000 in collisions each year. I am not clear about the folks who die of exhaust inhalation while sitting in their garages.

People have used vehicles to run over and crush/kill people.

[GeneCC]

Because NYC media and academic leftists don't hate people who drive cars.

Not quite....

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced on Monday that he will create a car-free zone on three Saturdays in August, along a 6.9-mile stretch of streets through Manhattan, from the Brooklyn Bridge, north to Park Avenue and the Upper East Side. Cars, trucks and buses will be banned on the streets along the route from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Aug. 9, 16 and 23. The mayor was careful to describe the initiative, called Summer Streets, as an experiment.

“If it works, we’ll certainly consider doing it again,” Mr. Bloomberg said, at a news conference in the East Village on Lafayette Street, which will be included in the route.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/ny...sing.html?_r=0

Members of Climate Rush cycled from Blackfriars Bridge to TfL's headquarters where Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes was among those to speak.

The protest was held to mark World Carfree Day.

Andrew Tobert, from Climate Rush, said: "Imagine if cars were banned from central London?"

"Buses would glide through town, people would feel safe cycling and our air would be clean. Children could walk to school.

"Rather than perpetuate this, TfL need to start prioritising people."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15016232

Since roads provide human access to remote areas, perhaps it should come as no surprise that an organization has formed which has as its primary objective the closing and removal of roads on public lands.

http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/htm/roads.html

[GeneCC]

In 1968 the Supreme Court decided (Terry v. Ohio) that a frisk -- patting down a person's outer clothing -- is proper if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is armed and dangerous. If a pat-down reveals an object that might be a gun, the officer can enter the suspect's pocket to remove it. If the gun is being carried illegally, the suspect can be arrested.

The US Supreme Court has also said that "Civil Forfeiture", stealing property from people who are "suspected of being drug dealers" is Constitutional.

And modern science can be enlisted to help. Metal detectors at airports have reduced the number of airplane bombings and skyjackings to nearly zero. But these detectors only work at very close range. What is needed is a device that will enable the police to detect the presence of a large lump of metal in someone's pocket from a distance of 10 or 15 feet.

Too bad if they have a Pacemaker, huh?

[Philbert]

So in summary

Gun control won't disarm criminals.

And if it did, the benefits would be offset by removing the ability of the law abiding to defend themselves.

The government has no right to disarm us when they can't protect us.

The NRA is also wrong to think that tougher punishment will stop crime.

What will really stop crime is if the police were more effective at catching people who carry guns illegally.

The police should focus on deterring criminal use of firearms by making it difficult for them to carry a gun undetected. They should focus on known criminals and gang members and make use of technology that will allow them to detect firearms without pat downs.

----

If you can see past the fact that an academic (oh noes) wrote this in the New York Times (OH NOES), I think all of us should be able to agree with more than half of the article.

[c45man]

Because NYC media and academic leftists don't hate people who drive cars.

They dislike both, but hate gun owners more. They would rather see members of society that do not own guns and depend on public transportation to get around. It all boils down to the leftist dream where subjects depend on the government in all matters.