Veni Quid Veniat

     In fact, laws restricting citizens' ability to carry guns create an environment ripe for exactly the kind of tragedy that occurred in Colorado. Rather than being an argument for further gun control, the shooting is an indictment of current gun control laws. The theater in which the shooting occurred, owned by Cinemark Century Theaters, was officially a gun-free zone, as are all of Cinemark's theaters. The mall in Oregon was, like most malls across the country, a gun free zone and, obviously, Sandy Hook Elementary School was a gun free zone, as are most schools and universities. With these shootings more than 75% of mass public shootings since 1999, have occurred in gun free zones. That includes 77% of fatalities since 1999 and 83% of all those shot in mass public shootings since 1999. Far from filling their intended purpose as a safe area where students and others could pursue their lives free from the threat of gun violence, gun-free zones make an appealing target for lunatics across the country. This provides strong support for gun rights advocates' contention that more guns means less crime.

     Many respond by pointing to the fact that America has the highest rate of gun ownership of any nation on earth and has very high rates of gun related homicides (in the top ten worldwide). They argue that the link is clear: Americans have more guns, therefore Americans commit more crimes. The reality is far more complex. Although it is true that America does have higher rates of gun related homicide, it also has higher rates of homicides completely unrelated to firearm use. Americans simply commit more murders (which is partially a result of the fact that the United States groups both criminal homicides and justifiable homicides, creating an inflated number). Further, Switzerland, which requires gun ownership for all adult males and has the highest rate of firearm ownership of any developed country besides the United States, has one of the lowest rates of gun related crime and has the fourth lowest homicide rate overall. Obviously the presence or absence of guns is not the primary indicator of homicide rates (or indeed of the rate of occurrence of any crime except, possibly, sexual assault).

     This fact is seen in the lack of a statistical connection between a population's ability to own guns and low rates of gun crimes. According to the United Nations Office on Gun and Crimes (2000), the top five developed countries in per capita rates of homicides are, in order of decreasing homicide rates, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Barbados, and Poland. Of these Estonia, Belarus, and Barbados prohibit gun ownership entirely while Ukraine and Poland allow regulated gun ownership. No correlation is apparent in this data, a trait shared by the five countries with lowest total homicide rate. These, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Denmark, and Ireland, are also split, with Hong Kong and Singapore prohibiting all guns and the rest allowing (Switzerland even requires) gun ownership. Further, the top five developed countries in homicide rate with firearms is similarly divided. This group, again listed in descending order of homicides, is composed of Belarus, Barbados, the United States, Slovakia, and Estonia. Belarus, Barbados, and Estonia prohibit gun ownership while the United States and Slovakia do not. Similarly, the five developed countries with the lowest rates of homicide with firearms, Hong Kong, Singapore, England and Wales, New Zealand, and Spain, are equally split, with Hong Kong and Singapore prohibiting gun ownership entirely and England and Wales, New Zealand, and Spain allowing regulated gun ownership. The same statistical trend, or more accurately, lack of a statistical trend, occurs in all other lists of homicide rates by country. This fact is telling. Not only is total homicide rate independent of the legality or illegality of firearms, the rate of homicides committed with firearms isn't even dependent on the legality or illegality of firearms. In some cases banning guns may decrease the rate of homicides with firearms and thus the total homicide rate, in others it may not. Obviously other factors besides guns are far more important here.

     Less drastic attempts to limit gun ownership, for example, banning certain types of firearms, has shown itself, at best, no more effective than banning guns entirely: that is, not at all effective. In 1982 Chicago instituted a policy banning handguns outright in the city. That year approximately 45% of homicides in the city were committed with handguns. Since that time the overall murder rate in Chicago has averaged 17% lower. Unfortunately for proponents of gun control, the nationwide murder rate has averaged 25% lower and the percentage of homicides committed with handguns has risen steadily since the ban until in 2008 96% of homicides in Chicago were committed with handguns. It is patently obvious that the ban didn't work at all as intended.

     It is possible, however, that Chicago was simply an example of poor enforcement. Britain also instituted a crackdown on guns in 1968 and 1997. The 1968 law required anyone purchasing any firearm to obtain a certificate from their district police chief. Obtaining this certificate involved the payment of a fee and convincing the district police chief that they had a good reason for purchasing a firearm, and were not a threat to society. The 1968 law also required that the certificates specify the identification number of the firearm. In 1997 Britain passed a law banning handguns, and, using the identification numbers provided by the 1968 law, confiscated almost every gun in the country. Since the passage of the 1968 law the homicide rate has averaged 52% higher, while since the passage of the 1997 law the homicide rate has averaged 15% higher.

     Britain's stunning lack of success was matched, however, by a similar utter failure in the United States. A law banning handguns in Washington D.C. was passed in 1976. After the passage of this law the homicide rate in Washington D.C. average 72% higher than previously. The law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 and homicide rates appear to be returning to pre-1976 levels. In short, laws restricting the sale, ownership, or use of firearms appear to, at best, merely maintain existing homicide rates. At worst they can have a severely negative effect on homicide rates.

     Even the few cases cited as successes by advocates of gun control are hardly appealing. Australia has been mentioned in several articles on the subject as an excellent example of the positive effects of gun control. In 1996, in the wake of a tragic mass public shooting, Australia enacted a buyback program together with extensive regulations which guns are legal and which are not. Supporters of the legislation proudly point to the fact that no mass public shootings have occurred since that time, along with a slight decrease in overall gun violence, as evidence that the legislation worked. They ignore several troubling facts, however. Since the passage of the 1996 law 87% of gun crimes have been committed with illegal firearms. As opponents of gun control have argued, criminals will still find a way to get guns, if perhaps still in lower numbers. The other side of the story is unequivocally negative. The overall crime rate rose dramatically. Australia is now third in per capita rapes and sexual assaults and second among developed countries. The only developed country ahead of it in that category is South Africa, which also has quite restrictive gun control laws. The phenomenon is not limited to Australia and South Africa. Throughout the world rates of rape and sexual assault tend to rise when gun ownership is limited. Take, for example, U.S. college campuses, which are typically gun-free zones. Several studies estimate that as many as one in four female college students have been sexually assaulted.The negative effects of gun control on violent crime as a whole are abundantly evident in Mexico, where gun laws have historically been far more restrictive than those in the United States yet homicide rates are almost three times higher than in its northern neighbor.

     One could list other examples, but the point has been made: at best, gun control maintains the status quo in crime rates. In a worst case scenario it can dramatically influence crime rates upwards. The inevitable conclusion is that an armed populace provides a significant deterrent to those who might desire to commit crime. Rather than providing a pool of armed criminals, arming the populace decreases the number of potential targets for criminals. However well-meaning attempts to limit or prohibit gun ownership may be, they are woefully misguided and potentially dangerous.