Steyn 1

Rench Steyn
Professor Jorgensen
English 1010
7 April 2014
Gun control and why it wont work
When discussing gun control, one of the most heated topics, the discussion on whether
enacting a ban on firearms will make America safe or unsafe is never ending. Gun control in the
sense of banning all firearms is not something that will make America safer because criminals do
not follow the laws that are meant to protect its citizens; banning firearms would leave law
abiding citizens unarmed and criminals armed. Several countries which banned firearms, had
major increases in all categories of crime; including gun related crimes.
When we look at countries that set the example for gun control such as Britain, we see
that taking away firearms as means of defending ones self, only creates a situation where there
is a lack of a strong deterrent. This leaves a population of victims who are not able to defend
themselves with equal force. In an article written by Joyce Lee Malcolm, titled Gun Controls
Twisted Outcome, we can see how ineffective Britains gun control laws are and just how much
worse off the country and its citizens as a whole have become. The first firearm restriction
passed by Britain The 1920 Firearms Act (Lee 2), required law abiding citizens who wanted
to have a firearm for protection to get a permit from the chief of police. It was up to the chief of
police to decide if you were a good candidate to possess a firearm. (Lee 1). At first glance, this
was not a bad law to pass. Obviously there are people who should never get their hands on
firearms and this law was merely enacted to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands

Steyn 2

Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals
and other dangerous persons. (Lee 1.)
Slowly but surely, the British government started discouraging its citizens from owning
firearms. By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or
personal protection. (Lee 1.) This escalated when in 1964 people were told it should hardly
ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person (Lee
1.) What made these restrictions even worse for the English population was the 1953 Prevention
Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article made, adapted, or intended for
an offensive purpose without lawful authority or excuse. (Lee1).
Britain was under the impression that banning firearms would mean less crime, as Lee
writes The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them
seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime
even before guns were restricted (Lee 1). When looking at earlier statistics for the years 1890-
92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population
of 30 million (Lee 1), its easy to see why the British government didnt have the chance to
recognize the benefits of an armed population, since they didnt have a high crime rate to begin
with.
Britain went from allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves with equal or
greater force to creating a situation where citizens have the disadvantage. The fact that Britains
crime rate from 1997 to 2001, more than doubled (Lee 1) shows, that when there were less
armed citizens, criminals were faced with little to no risk. When compared to the United States,
England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent
of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S.

Steyn 3

(Lee 1). This reiterates the importance and the benefits of being armed and ready to defend
yourself and promotes the presence of resistance with deadly consequences.
Britains crime rates, especially armed crimes, climbed drastically after guns were
banned. In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by
40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of
people robbed at gunpoint in London rose more than 50 percent (Lee 1). This clearly shows
that law abiding citizens who followed the law gave up their firearms; however criminals did not
follow the same laws and were still able to obtain their firearms illegally as stated A hundred
years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to
have had little impact in the criminal underworld (Lee 1). This clearly leaves criminals with an
unfair advantage over law abiding citizens.
When we take a look at the effects of firearms in the daily lives of Americans, we see a
much different picture. In a research article posted by James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith,
Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about
10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms (Agresti). Just looking at these numbers makes it
seem like guns play a major role in crimes committed against innocent people. And its probably
not far from the truth, since a gun is a very deadly and effective weapon. Now when we take a
step back and take a look at things from a much wider perspective A 1993 nationwide survey of
4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had
members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone
almost certainly would have been killed if they had not used a gun for protection. Applied to the
U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. (Agresti). We see that even
though a lot of crimes are committed with firearms, a much larger amount of crimes are

Steyn 4

prevented by law abiding citizens who do own and carry firearms legally. Another great example
of the effectiveness of a firearm is illustrated Based on survey data from a 2000 study published
in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and
others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.(Agresti) When we take a look at these
statistics of civilians defending themselves and others with firearms, and cross reference them to
the statistics to that of London, whos gun related crime rate rose over 50 percent after guns were
banned, we get a very realistic idea of how much worse the crime rates can become, when
citizens give up their right to defend themselves with firearms.
The effectiveness of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens can be seen when a
survey was done by interviewing inmates who were convicted of committing violent crimes. The
survey showed that 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed
victim (Agresti) and 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed
that the victim was carrying a gun (Agresti). One can make the argument that being armed can
escalate a situation from bad to worse. However being the aggressor and making a statement that
you are afraid of resistance from a citizen with a deadly weapon and will most likely think twice
before committing a crime against someone you think has a firearm, just shows that the mere
presence of a firearm already makes America a safer place than it could be if there were no
firearms to deter criminals.
The same trend can be seen in an article written by John R Lot when he discusses the
effects of the Shall Issue laws that were passed by thirty one states which allowed their citizens
to carry firearms and conceal them with proper permits. In his study with David Mustard, a
graduate student in economics at the University of Chicago analyzed the FBI's crime statistics
for all 3,054 American counties from 1977 to 1992. The study showed that during this

Steyn 5

timeframe, crime rates were reduced in multiple categories. Their findings show that states
reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3% (Lot).
These statistics show that after law abiding citizens became armed, fewer crimes were committed
against them. When these same statistics were applied to the remaining states who did not pass
the Shall Issue law, the numbers showed how beneficial an armed population could be If
those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then,
citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated
assaults and 12,000 robberies (Lot). Basically, criminals respond rationally when they are
faced with deadly consequences.
When looking at the role firearms played in the success of a free country such as
Switzerland, we can see that gun ownership has been in the roots of Switzerlands culture from
the very beginning. In an article written by Stephen P Halbrook, Guns, Crime and the Swiss,
Switzerland has relied on guns from the beginning to defend themselves against tyrants. Since
the founding of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed
populace for its defense (Halbrook). Switzerlands success as a free country is deeply rooted in
the fact that the population has been well armed.
Even when situations in Europe worsened in 1768, as conflict with the Crown worsened,
the colonists called for the strengthening of the militia, so that this country will have a better
security against the calamities of war than any other in the world, Switzerland alone excepted
(Halbrook), the Swiss people knew and understood the importance of being armed. The
effectiveness of having an armed population did not go unnoticed in the rest of the world. When
the Nazis invaded Europe, they did not take on Switzerland since they knew that Switzerland
had a well-armed militia. Nazis did not invade Switzerland, one of those reasons is that every

Steyn 6

Swiss man had a rifle at home(Halbrook). This was confirmed as Nazi invasion plans
themselves state that, because of the Swiss gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would
be difficult to conquer and occupy(Halbrook). When evil tyrants such as the Nazis recognized
the effectiveness of being armed and well trained as the Swiss people, then conversely they
recognized how easily the other countries who banned firearms can be taken over.
History shows that, several countries who banned firearms, experienced mass genocide
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded
up and murdered. (Daily Herald) 1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5
million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated. (Daily Herald) 1938: Germany
established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and
exterminated. (Daily Herald). These statistics, on a much larger scale than local crime, shows
exactly why guns should not be taken away from law abiding citizens. When people are not able
to defend themselves from the evil intentions of another, whether it be, from a local criminal, or
a government looking to exterminate a group of people, then people are not truly free.
In my personal interview with a Utah Highway Patrol officer Nate Haynes, I asked him
what his views were on being well trained on how to use a firearm. His answer The more
training a person has, the more able they are to competently respond in a situation where stress
is at its highest (Haynes), emphasizes the importance of knowing how to use a deadly weapon.
But just knowing how to use a weapon, doesnt make you an expert as Officer Haynes expresses
when he stated that Any responsible person who picks a deadly weapon should be completely
prepared to use it mentally and physically. Just shooting a firearm is one thing, but being
prepared mentally for a situation where your life and others are at risk will need some hands on
training.

Steyn 7

Taking away guns from law abiding citizens, leave criminals with an unfair advantage
since criminals do not follow laws. Guns, as deadly as they are, deter and prevent more crime
than they cause. Criminals are aware of the benefits of armed citizens and generally avoid
anyone that could be armed as they look for easy targets. Guns have been the sole reason why
some countrys survived horrible events such as the Holocaust, and the lack of guns, are why
large groups of people were exterminated. Overall, guns play a very important role in our
society. They make us feel safe, they help deter crimes and even prevent crimes.

















Steyn 8

Work Cited Page
(1) Joyce Lee Malcolm. Gun controls twisted outcome. November 2002. 04/02/2014.
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome/1
(2) James D Agresti. Just Facts, Gun control. 2/11/13. 04/02/14.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
(3) John R Lott JR. More guns equal less violent crime. 04/15/2014
http://www.largo.org/Lott.html
(4) Stephan P Halbrook. Guns, crimes and the Swiss. 04/15/2014
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
(5) Daily Herald. Gun control followed by genocide. 04/15/2014.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130127/discuss/701279952/