Violence: Guns in the city
Yesterday I was on the phone with my good friend Carlos. Carlos and his wife were sitting at a restaurant preparing to order when a truck pulled up outside, a man jumped out and started firing a handgun into area and the restaurant. I heard the pandemonium over the phone, the windows being blown-out and people hitting the deck, screams, tables and chairs falling over it sounded like an earthquake. I could hear Carlos yelling at other people to “get down, get down!” I could not understand these sounds coming through my phone. My mind struggling to make sense of this was picturing a tree had falling into the roof or a freak tornado was ripping through. It was not until the gunman peeled away with the gunman in it that Carlos, in an agitated state was able to tell me what had happened.
This inexplicable assault on a restaurant would not have happened if handguns were not so easy to get in the US. This was not a mob hit or some criminal vengeance on a high profile diner. Most likely it was gang initiation, someone young man having to “make his bones” in the local street gang. Ready access to hand guns and assault weapons makes this kind of initiation possible.
Now, in fairness, countries which have restrictions on handguns and assault weapons such as England do still have gangs and initiations. Typically the weapon of choice is a knife and so higher rates of knife violence occur in these countries. However knives, while deadly, pale in comparison to handguns or assault weapons so the fatality rates from these assaults are way lower than the US fatalities from handguns and assault weapons, mere fractions really. Additionally, these countries do not experience the paroxysms of grief that accompany the awful trend in the US of shooting up a place whether it be a college campus, a post office or a restaurant. In societies where handgun and assault weapons are restricted, crime is more localized and violence is not a means of attracting attention because the lack of heavy weapons make such options mere fantasy. Outlandish acts such as firing blindly into a crowded restaurant can only happen if guns are readily available.
Some argue that if more people had guns this would not happen. This argument is dishonest, more guns would mean more incidents involving a gun, its simple statistics. To verify this one need only look at the number of gun related violence which mirrors the rise or fall in the number of weapons in the U.S.
From the above graphic it is obvious that a significant drop in criminal gun play began just before 1995. What caused this? The Brady Bill, which when passed in 1994 made it harder to acquire firearms across the board (background checks and waiting periods, etc). Now, each side of the gun-control debate has good points but clearly the statistics tell the story, less guns - less gun related incidents. The other argument against ‘guns for everyone’ is the understanding that an over-armed citizenry merely re-creates the wild west era. If my friend was armed he would then have the option of firing on the assailant, which while personally satisfying, would greatly increase the odds of a bloody body count as two men traded gunfire within the confines of a crowded restaurant.
This whole scenario, of a man firing into a crowded restaurant, which actually happened on June 28th, 2008 in Phoenix, Arizona is not possible without a well-armed citizenry. Perhaps the founding fathers did not have such horror in mind.
Carlos and his wife are well, and still damn fine human beings.