Handguns and Violent Crime

1. Handguns and Violent Crime Introduction to Moral Issues

2. 2 goals of the essay • Dixon: First I want to persuade applied ethicists that handgun control is worthy of their attention • Second, by using data, I want to argue that an outright handgun ban is the best policy

3. Handgun Statistics and Handgun Homicide rates • Country (1991) ownership per 100,000/average homicide rate (16 years) • U.S.A. 22,000/4.03 • Israel 3,716/0.48 • Sweden 3,700/0.22 • Canada 2,301/0.18 • Australia 1,596/0.06 • U.K. 837/0.03

4. The Initial Case for Restricting Handguns • Dixon: My theory is based on common sense: Handguns are necessary for handgun homicides , so a higher ownership rate is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate. • Handgun ownership is only one of the important determinants of handgun violence rates, (Economic and racial inequalities, , unemployment, and countless historical and cultural factors are also important causal factors)

5. Opponents of handgun control • Opponents of handgun prohibition argue that the connection to handgun homicide might be causally connected, while denying that it is related to overall homicide rates. • The author wants to show that reducing handgun ownership will causally reduce all handgun violence and violent crime

6. Two points • First, a huge number and a substantial percentage of homicides and other violent crime are committed with handguns. • Second, because of their lethality, cheapness, ease of use, and small size (and hence ease of concealability), handguns are uniquely suited to homicide and other violent crimes

7. Statistics • From 1950-1970 the increase in the handgun ownership rate was matched by a steady increase in the overall homicide rate. • Since the 1970s the annual homicide rate has become relatively stable, deviating little from the 8 to 10 per 100,000 range • The US has become saturated with handguns to supply criminals

8. Two main arguments • The extremely high handgun ownership rate in the United States is a major cause of the high rate and homicide connected with handguns. • Because of the high percentage of violent crimes currently committed in the United States with handguns, and because of the effectiveness of handguns in committing violent crimes, a reduction in the rate of handgun violence is likely to reduce the overall rate of violent crime

9. Why the Brady Bill doesn’t go far enough • James Brady, the Whitehouse press secretary was shot by the man attempting to assassinate President Reagan in 1981 • He suffered brain damage • Public out cry led to tougher legislation for concealed weapons • The bill imposes a waiting period of a few days, and a background check, before a handgun is purchased

10. Why the Brady Bill doesn’t go far enough • In reality the one benefit of the Brady Bill is that it may have moved this country slightly closer to considering meaningful handgun control. • In itself, the Brady Bill is likely to have little effect in reducing handgun crime

11. Why the Brady Bill doesn’t go far enough • 75% of people who don’t have felonies will not be affected by the brady bill. • The Bill will do nothing to restrict wrongdoer’ access to handguns through the illegal channels that already exist. : theft and illegal transfers • Only law abiding citizens will be the ones who follow the rules of the brady bill, criminals who need guns can get them.

12. An outright ban • The outright ban I propose will immediately stem the influx of handguns, which is especially important in the view of the fact that disproportionate number of handgun crimes are committed with new handguns. • The Brady Bill is inadequate, because it will allow the access of guns to future criminals, and it will allow the pool of illegal handguns to grow even larger

13. Utilitarian Objections to Handgun Prohibition • Handgun prohibition will probably reduce violent crime • To refute this claim, opponents need to show that it is probably false, not just that it may be false.

14. Reducing handguns, reducing overall crime? • Opponents of gun control give a common response: substitution theory • Substitution theory says , if handguns are banned, criminals will simply turn to even more lethal guns and other weapons. • The empirical support is flawed, and it underestimates the ability of handguns to be lethal vs long bulky rifles, or other weapons. • Handguns are very valuable to criminals, they will pay nearly any price for them

15. Other countries, substitution effect • If substitution of other, more lethal weapons were likely to occur in the United States, then we would expect these other countries with low handgun ownership rates to have high non-handgun homicide rates to compensate for their low handgun homicide rates; but they do not.

16. Handgun violence reducing handgun crime • The usual argument is that the high rate of handgun violence in the US is attributable to factors unrelated to high handgun ownership. • If anything, the existence of multiple causes of handgun violence makes the striking international correlation between ownership and homicide rates even harder to dismiss as a correlation

17. Handguns used for defensive purposes • The sole weakness of this objection is the flimsy nature of empirical evidence. • Most of the evidence is reported by convicted criminals, gun sellers, prisoners, etc • Rather than acquiesing in an endless spiral of increasingly heavily armed aggressors and victims, we would do better to strive for a society in which neither aggressors nor victims have handguns.

18. Handguns used for defensive purposes • Even a handgun purchased for purely defensive purpose may be used offensively, since we are all capable of heated arguments when a handgun is available. • The data concludes: The higher the handgun ownership rate, the higher the handgun homicide rate

19. Utilitarianism, Handgun Prohibition, and individual rights • Handgun prohibition undeniably restrictions people’s freedom. They are prevented from owning handguns, which they may desire for non criminal purposes • However the right to life and bodily integrity of innocent victims of handgun violence-which, if my main thesis is sound, are constantly endangered by the prevalence of handguns

20. Opponents of handgun prohibition • Opponents of handgun prohibition say that they have an invioble right to protect themselves, regardless of the pernicious consequences. • We cannot sidestep conflicts of rights by simply declaring of the rival rights to be absolute • Why does my right to own a handgun outweigh the rights of innocent victims of the violent crime that occur as a result of the widespread ownership of handguns?

21. Right to respond to aggression • We do not have a right to respond to aggression unconditionally, it has to aim to be proportional. • Handgun prohibition is based on the least controversial ground for restricting freedom: preventing harm to others.

22. Is Dixon being too Idealistic? • While no legislation will ever completely rid the country of handguns, a federal ban would immediately halt sale of 2 million hand guns per year, while voluntary buyback programs and the seizure of weapons used in crime will gradually reduce the arsenal of handguns in private hands • We surely need to distinguish between prescribing what we should do, and on the other hand, what is politically tenable.