Erika Wilhite
Published: January 25, 2006
Last November, San Francisco held a popular vote and passed the nation’s strictest gun ban to date. The bill, Proposition H (I know, I know – what were they thinking?), bans both the sale of guns within the city limits as well as the ownership of any sort of firearm by any resident who is not a law enforcement officer, security guard or member of the military.
Predictably, the ban has gun rights organizations up in arms (pun intended). After the bill passed, the National Rifle Association fought for (and won) a three month postponement, meaning that the ban – which will likely be disputed again – is now slated to go into effect in March, rather than January. And citizens have an additional month to mourn over their beloved firearms before they’re supposed to hand them over.
I have to agree with the NRA on this one; this kind of law just isn’t kosher.
First of all, I know what you’re thinking – she’s siding with the NRA?
No. I’m just really suspicious of my government. They have very big weapons at their disposal; it follows that I, too, would at least like the option of possessing (slightly smaller) weapons. Just in case.
Think about it; what can an unarmed populace do to assert it’s will if they get into a serious disagreement with their very well-armed government? Vote them into submission?
Second, keep in mind that although Republicans and the NRA are forever being linked by the media (something Charlton Heston and Michael Moore can finally agree on), the Second Amendment transcends partisanship.
This is more of a civil liberties issue than anything else, and because Americans really do have the right to possess firearms (unless and until the Constitution is amended to state otherwise), an individual state or city doesn’t have the clout to contradict it.
(Don’t waste time whining about states’ rights – federal law has held the upper hand in pretty much everything since the Civil War, and we all know it).
If gun control advocates are genuinely interested in preventing fatalities, as they claim to be, maybe they should learn a lesson from the so-called War on Drugs. As with so many wars on nouns (terrorism, poverty – take your pick), the War on Drugs has failed because the drugs themselves aren’t actually the problem.
Let’s face it; Americans have a problem with shooting one another. Evidence tends to finger society as the culprit, and I’m inclined to agree, but wherever the blame lies, it’s probably not with the firearms themselves. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people; clich‚d but true.
Other nations illustrate the fact that gun bans and low crime rates don’t necessarily go hand in hand. The United Kingdom and Germany have both outlawed guns, and they have low violent crime rates; Canadians buy guns like they’re going out of fashion, but they also happen to have low violent crime rates.
Even if Canada is an anomaly, and the U.K.’s gun bans are an effective means of lowering crime rates, consider the fact that nations like the U.K. and Germany also have strong welfare programs and free national health care.
In other words, the U.S.’s inordinately high gun crime statistics could have more to do with its lack of attention to social ailments than the ready availability of firearms to its citizens.