Gun Control and the Perfect Storm

This piece was published in the Orlando Sentinel

By John S. Wilson

Special to the Sentinel

August 8, 2009


2nd Amendment -

African-Americans make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population; yet in 2005, they accounted for a staggering 53.4 percent of the 12,352 gun-related homicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is one of the dire public-health consequences of patchwork gun regulation in the United States. But far more muddled than the actual regulation itself is the Second Amendment debate that undergirds it.





Pro-gun folks essentially say that gun ownership is not only a long-held tradition in our country, but it also is woven into our culture and heritage and is part and parcel of how this country was able to ensure its independence. That argument is valid.

The communities that are the most prevalent victims of gun violence harbor a different perspective: Guns don't ensure our modern-day independence; instead they are wielded by those who seek to victimize citizens, and, in turn, they make those citizens dependent upon law enforcement.

Pro-gun folks object, asserting that increased legal gun ownership actually leads to less crime. Prolific researcher and author John Lott Jr. has done an extensive study that supports this view. It shows a "strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with [concealed weapon] permits and the crime rate,"according to an interview with Lott on the University of Chicago Press Web site. The more permits that are issued, the fewer violent crimes that occur.

Now let's see if there is a more efficacious vaccine to inoculate society from the scourge of violent crime than increased weapons on our person, and in our bars, parks and colleges. Recent legislation proposed in a number of states and in Congress would lead some to believe that when citizens are not armed, they are just targets.

But the strongest predictor of whether people will become victims of violent crimes isn't whether they own a gun; it's the area in which they live. Statistics compiled by the Justice Department show not only that there are increased rates of violent crime in urban areas but also that in nearly 58 percent of cases, victims were attacked either in or within 1 mile of their homes.

In addition, the rate of violent crime for those with a family income below $50,000 is as great as 2 1/2 times that of a family making more than $50,000. So we can conclude what the perfect storm of victimization looks like: having low income and residing in an urban center.

So what happens when society decreases the risk factors that form the perfect storm?
Maybe focusing less on concealed-weapon permits, and more on the institutional forces like low-income housing, ineffective schools and low wages leads to better
results.

What if public housing were dismantled? The Section 8 rental voucher program, which subsidizes rent for low-income families, could be used in its stead. Relocating families to safer communities deconstructs the perfect storm of victimization: Kids attend more academically challenging schools and are less likely to drop out or join gangs; and more after-school outlets for youth are accessible for mentoring and peer education.

All of this is required for parents who must work longer hours, are seeking more job skills or are interested in furthering their education. Increased wages rarely come to fruition without additional skills or education.

The Second Amendment debate is too shallow and filled with invectives. Peel back the layers, and what lies underneath are intertwined sociological issues, government missteps and a latent lack of the greatest socioeconomic equalizer there ever was — education.

Sphere: Who else is blogging about this? Click here.

Related Posts :