Should Handguns be Banned in San Francisco - Essay Example

Underlying the debate regarding handgun control in San Francisco is a reflection of the fact that no living person requested the second amendment to the constitution. It was written at a time when there was no organized militia to protect the law abiding citizen from outlaws and tyrannical government. There is a case to be made for a referendum throughout the US as to whether to keep the second amendment and/or to allow citizens to vote as to whether they wish to be bound by it in the 21st Century. In the San Francisco debate Supervisor Chris Daly has not argued that there is no convincing evidence that gun control limits the rights of citizens to protect themselves. Instead his concerns are with the aftermath of a lack of gun control on homicide and suicide rates. This is based on the theories known as the "Zimring-Cook" effect, referring to the work of researchers Frank Zimring and Philip Cook1 where fatal homicides and suicide attempts are routinely blamed on the prevalence of handguns in American society. Daly’s support for Proposition-H rests on 4 arguments: 64.4% of all San Franciscan homicides in 2004 involved handguns Guns are used in emotionally heated altercations because they are readily available Suicide mortality rises fivefold when handguns are used the public are unable to make their mind up because of disinformation from powerful lobby groups such as the NRA He goes on to say that: No single strategy will solve San Franciscos epidemic of violence. We need new investments in education, community development and jobs as well as meaningful gun reform. Fewer handguns in the flow of commerce will make it more difficult to obtain one.2 The evidence against the ubiquity of handguns does appear compelling on the face of it: A 2002 San Francisco Department of Public Health report cited 176 handgun incidents in the city affecting 213 victims in 1999 the last year data are available. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death that year, 67 percent were handguns.3 In a point by point counter argument Guy Smith4 quotes a wide range of validated research (based on the theories of Florida criminologist Gary Kleck) to point out that the victims of most gun crimes are known felons, that crimes of passion are statistically rare the New England Journal of Medicine research Supervisor Daly relies upon is known to be seriously flawed there is not necessarily a causal relationship between the availability of handguns and suicide rates there is research evidence to suggest that criminals are less likely to target someone they know to be armed the police force are unable to prevent crime effectively and in any event have no legal duty to protect a specific individual One wonders how useful it is to compare and contrast San Francisco with a country like Japan which has developed very differently in terms of defining a criminal and the status of handguns. For example one is aware that there is nothing like the personal honor code of the Japanese in the US. One cannot simply compare suicide rates in the way that Smith has done without examining why the Japanese commit suicide in the first place. All that can be deduced from the research on suicide that Smith quotes is that successful suicides do not require handguns - - they will find other means. The problem with these figures is that they are taken out of context. It is not clear what percentage of crime involves the use of firearms. The debate is one-dimensional and highly emotive, yet it fails to tackle the real issue: why has crime escalated in San Francisco? Smith implies that criminals are intrinsically different from non-criminals and are best kept at bay by brandishing a handgun. Supervisor Daly is quiet on this point. Without being tough on the causes of crime, one fails to see how criminal behavior can be modified. It would appear that there is some common ground between Smith and Daly. They both agree that gun control is not a solution in and of itself to the increasing violence being experienced in San Francisco. Ironically one could use Smith’s arguments to reiterate the points Daly makes. Handguns are not necessary in a society to protect citizens. The Japanese are twice as successful at committing suicide without handguns as their US counterparts are with handguns. Homicides and suicides take place in countries like England where there is no second amendment and crimes of passion take place there too. It is simply that guns are not used as frequently as they are in the United States. Polsby and Brennan (1995) state: The thoughtful person immediately recognizes that England, Switzerland, and the United States, as well as urban and rural areas within the United States, differ in many ways other than in just the prevalence of guns. There are differences in culture, history, and ethnic mix, to name only a few. More variables must be taken into account. In particular what is missing from the pro-Proposition H argument is corroborating evidence as to the repercussions if guns are banned. The anti-Propsition H lobbyists are quite clear on the potential consequences. Besides Smith’s arguments that the only persons to benefit from a gun ban will be criminals there is also concern that San Francisco will effectively become a police state. State legislation means that the city has no way of monitoring the effectiveness of the ban as it is prevented from registering handgun owners. Further the Supreme Court have made it clear that not only do the police not have a duty to protect individuals, it is unconstitutional for the City to ban guns as this would be a pre-emption of State legislature. Further Proposition-H creates uncertainty for the law abiding citizen who wishes to protect his family as the penalties for breaching the new regulations have not been promulgated. In their 1995 paper Polsby and Brennan make a very strong case against gun control. In particular they cite research showing that there is no causal correlation between gun possession and violent crime. In their analysis of the City of Chicago (where since April 1982 it has been illegal to purchase or register any handgun within the city) they say: Through most of the 1980s national murder rates declined, as did the rates in Chicago. Then in the late 1980s, national murder statistics began to trend up. Chicagos numbers did likewise. Currently, after thirteen years under a strict handgun ban, handgun murders and murders of all sorts are at record levels in the city. Disturbingly they go on to cite research by Balkin and McDonald which purported to conclude that: recreational demand has the relatively highest price elasticity, followed by self-protection demand, and offender demand has the relatively lowest elasticity. This led Polsby and Brennan to the ironic conclusion that law abiding citizens would be most impacted by economic measures to control handguns, whilst those who intended using handguns for unlawful purposes would be least likely to be swayed by an increase in price. Polsby and Brennan address another point which both Smith and Daly ignore: Why has crime escalated in the US? None of this comes as much of a surprise if one considers the scissors of (1) poor life chances in the middle-class world (owing to the disintegration of families, poor educational opportunities, and so on) and (2) growing opportunities in the drug trade that result from our ever-more-vigorous efforts to suppress drug use by suppressing supply. The most important reason for criminal behavior is that the income that offenders can earn in the world of crime, as compared with the world of work, all too often makes crime appear to be the better choice. In conclusion then, whilst one’s sympathies lie with the Proposition-H lobby, the research suggests that there is no convincing evidence that gun control will improve the quality of life for the law abiding citizen. Although handgun control will mean that San Franciscan citizens will not lawfully be able to defend themselves with a gun or commit suicide with a gun, it does not necessarily mean that homicides and suicides will end. Further, due to the economics of the demand and supply of guns it will effectively amount to the unilateral disarmament of law abiding citizens in a country which has never had to think of alternatives to self-protection than a gun, and which is facing escalating crime levels. Works Cited Aravosis, John, Aprl 2003, DC IS AGAIN MURDER CAPITAL, NEW STUDY SHOWS. Available at: http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html Polsby, Daniel and Brennen, Dennis (1995), Taking Aim at Gun Control. Available at: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html Stillwell, Cinnamon , September 14, 2005, OPINION: San Francisco Gun Ban A Losing Proposition. Available at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/09/14/cstillwell.DTL. Last viewed 7 December 2005 Smith, Guy, 2004, Dissecting Sponsor Statements, Available at: http://www.gunfacts.info/sfban/dissecting.html Will voters deem S.F. no-guns-allowed city: Motion seems poised to pass, but firearm fans prepare for fight Read More