To the Editor:
The recent op-ed: “More Guns = More Crime?” was spot on.
The writer intelligently provided facts and data, something often missing in public policy debates. May I humbly add some thoughts.
As a Florida resident and NJ summer resident I’ve observed that Florida and NJ have vastly different gun laws, yet the difference in the firearms homicide rate is minimal. Florida has a “Stand Your Ground Law” which allows citizens to defend themselves if in risk of bodily harm. NJ does not.
The vast majority of gun violence occurs in inner cities throughout the country. Mass shootings, though terrible, are only a very small proportion of gun deaths. Yet the citizens of NJ and many other states are subject to laws that severely restrict Second amendment rights and do little to reduce crime.
The perpetrators are invariably young, inner-city males or young males who have been alienated, bullied and have had little parental guidance or love. Too many have been exposed to so much violent media that they are totally insensitive to murder. Witness the recent shooting of a McDonalds employee in Brooklyn, NY who was shot because he served cold French fries. The shooter didn’t care about NY’s gun laws.
Are we safer in a state where citizens are armed? Consider the case of “Hot Burglaries”, which occur when the homeowner is in residence. In the US only 10% are “hot burglaries”. However in the UK over 50% of burglaries are “hot”.
Could it be that forty US states recognize the Second Amendment rights of their citizens to defend themselves?
I’ve done an extensive study of the correlation between tough gun laws and firearms homicides. One would normally expect that tough laws = a low homicide rate. In fact, there is little to no correlation. In many states it’s the opposite. They have liberal gun laws and little gun violence. If laws worked we’d have no murders, rapes or robberies.
There are no simple fixes to the gun related crime problem.
There exists over one firearm for every US citizen. So gun confiscation (a desire of many) would only leave the citizenry at the mercy of criminals.
Politicians want to close “The gunshow loophole.” But according to the US DOJ criminals don’t get guns there. They either steal them or get them from accomplices.
Nevertheless we should tighten up the process for purchase of weapons and require background checks on ALL firearms purchases. Perhaps the purchase of high capacity semi-automatic rifles should subject the purchaser to a more stringent background check. Critical to this process is including mental health data in the background checks. This may save some lives.
NYC showed that when policing got serious it’s crime rates fell. Unshackling our police to be able to effectively pursue criminals would reduce crime.
NJ has recently loosened its laws regarding the treatment of crime and offenders. Given this fact, I would feel much safer when I’m here knowing that if necessary I could defend myself. But when I’m in NJ I will respect and obey it’s laws and hope the police will be there if necessary. But as Lee County, FL Sheriff said: “When seconds count the police are only minutes away.”
Finally, Consider the “Five Thirty Eight Project” a liberal think tank that recently did a three month exhaustive study of the gun issue and concluded that: “NONE OF THE POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT PROCLAMATIONS WOULD WORK” in reducing gun violence.
Maybe NJ will make some laws based on reality not just what feels good.
– Bill Dahms, Avalon/Cape Haze, Florida
