Armed and Not So Dangerous - In Support of the Right of Self-Defence

George Jonas, writing in the National Post has provided a succinct and cogent statement concerning a citizen's right (Canadian, no less) to be armed, if necessary, to ensure one's personal safety. Challenging the myth that personal security is a state responsibility, George takes on the Gun Registry, and the mindset that fostered it:

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Rear-guard defenders of the great white elephant Dumbo, a.k.a. the federal gun registry, assembled to re-enact Custer's Last Stand at urban cocktail parties this summer. Circulating on silver trays, next to the hummus, stood their latest mixed drink of apples and oranges.

The gun registry isn't useless, the Custer crowd argued, just because outlaws are likely to disregard it. On the same basis we might as well abolish the laws against murder. It may be true that laws are observed only by law-abiding people, but civilized societies still regulate conduct by promulgating laws. Having laws on the books is what civilization is all about.

Sorry, Gen. Custer. Nice try, but you can't get from here to there.

Civilization isn't about regulating conduct. Tyranny is about regulating conduct. Civilization is about regulating misconduct -- that is, criminally injurious or anti-social conduct. Murder is a misconduct; gun ownership isn't. Murder is anti-social by definition; gun ownership is anti-social only if you arbitrarily define it as anti-social (or your advisor, Prof. Wendy Cukier does). Murder is apples; gun ownership is oranges. Added up they amount to twaddle.

If anything, there may be a social benefit in law-abiding people owning guns.

Ten years ago the University of Chicago released a nationwide survey examining the impact of gun laws on crime. I wrote about it at the time. The study sought to determine what impact, if any, U.S. state laws permitting people to carry concealed handguns have had on major crimes. Between 1988 and 1996 the number of states where ordinary citizens could legally carry concealed weapons rose to 31. Before then, it was legal in only nine states.

The study found that in states where carrying concealed weapons was legal for people with no criminal record or mental illness, homicide had been reduced by 8.5%. Rape went down by 5%, and aggravated assault by 7%.

This reduction wasn't brought about primarily by the use or show of force, according to the study. It wasn't the result of specific victims actually defending themselves with guns. It was brought about mainly by general deterrence -- that is, by the awareness of would-be predators that their potential prey may be armed.

The figures aren't surprising. People have been arming themselves since the beginning of time based on the common-sense notion that a capacity for self-defense is likely to deter at least some foes. Criminals aren't necessarily crazy. No wonder one out of 10 murderers or one out of 20 rapists would rather not take a chance on being shot.

Citizens packing guns is no solution to crime. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it is (so don't yet write that enraged letter to the editor). Just as crime has no single cause, it has no single solution. People turning their homes into arsenals or going about bristling with weapons would be way down on any list of remedies I might propose.

However, in a society beset with crime such as ours, many people feel insecure. Some may elect to arm themselves, not to replace other social measures, but to ensure that they prevail. They may pack a gun, not as a substitute for law and order, but as a last-resort supplement to it.

Who are we to say no to them?

The authorities are unable to guarantee the security of any individual. It's not their fault, but it's a fact. They can't even fully warrant the security of VIPs against home intruders, despite guards on the premises -- as former prime minister Jean Chretien and his wife, Aline, discovered 11 years ago.

The police protect us by patrolling our communities and also by catching criminals after they've harmed us. These are good deterrents, but against assailants who remain undeterred, we're on our own. Cops can't materialize like spirits. A rapist or murderer can dispatch us faster than 911 can dispatch help (assuming we have a phone handy). Some of us don't feel like dying or being violated just because the government has run out of solutions. We prefer the last chance of a weapon.

Is it a genuine chance? Only rarely, but that isn't the point. What the Chicago study indicated was that it helps indirectly by serving as an additional deterrent. In 1988 there were 565 reported homicides in Canada. Based on the Chicago figures, if in 1988 we had passed a law in this country letting citizens carry concealed weapons, it might have saved 48 lives in that year alone.

But Canada isn't the U.S. We blow our horn about being a caring society, but we consider "caring" a state monopoly. Our parliamentarians have taken the view that if the government can't protect us, we don't deserve protection. We'd be better off violated or dead.

Maybe, just maybe, things will change. Maybe, with the Conservatives at the helm, if a citizen stumbles into a river of crime and misses the government's lifeboat, he or she won't have to drown. Perhaps Mr. Harper's Cabinet will let him or her swim for it.
© National Post 2006

Add your thoughts here, or better, share them with the National Post: Letters