Thispast week I was flipping through Newsweek when I came to an article discussing the recent National Rifle Association conference in Phoenix, Arizona. What grabbed my attention was a large photo above the article which featured a man that I suppose is an NRA member. Besides carrying a variety of artillery, the man was wearing a t-shirt which had the motto "Criminals Love Unarmed Victims."
Much of the NRA's platform regarding why gun control is bad centers around issues of the constitutionally protected right to be free to bear arms. Yet this t-shirt seems to suggest an alternative argument. It insinuates that when we limit individual's rights to bear arms, we subject them to the dangers of criminal behavior. Now, though I may have my own personal opinions regarding the first argument, I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, and thus it would be unfair of me to evaluate it. However, even I am capable of recognizing the inherent flaws in the second claim.
The world that the t-shirt envisions is one in which we all tote around guns so as to dissuade a criminal from attacking us. After all, certainly no criminal wants to engage in an armed conflict over a simple robbery. It seems fairly logical. After all, this same concept is often applied to international relations. Many scholars attribute the long period of non-warfare between the U.S. and USSR after World War II to a similar deterrence. We both had nuclear weapons and neither of us wanted to engage in nuclear warfare. Thus, neither of us attacked. It appears that the bearer of this t-shirt wants to apply deterrence theory to the individual level. We will all have guns; thus nobody will ever attack. Brilliant, right? Well, not exactly.
Anyone who attempts to carry deterrence theory to the individual level fails to account for one of its fundamental tenets. Deterrence theory only works if everyone knows the capabilities of the potential victim. We did not attack the Soviets, and vice versa, because we each knew that the other possessed nuclear weapons. Since individuals normally conceal their guns, there would not be an effective deterrent. Criminals would not know that any specific individual was carrying a gun, and thus, they would be unlikely to be deterred.
So, two possible situations arise once the criminal attacks. Either the victim is not carrying a gun and the crime occurs. Or, the potential victim is carrying a gun and retaliates when the criminal attacks.
This situation could lead to a large number of problems. There is a possibility that the sight of another gun would cause the criminal to panic promptly causing him to open fire. In addition, there is the danger of stray bullets if open gunfire ensues. Whatever the specific problems may be, what becomes clear is that allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons so as to protect them from crime is hardly the answer.
If deterrence theory were truly to be applied to the individual level it would require that each gun-carrying individual openly displayed his weapon so that each and every criminal could see it and shy away. This would mean that we would basically be back in the Old West where everyone carried around their six shooters. If it was not such a serious issue, it would almost be a comical image. I can just see my Dad, who commutes to New York City each day, strapping on his shoulder holster over his suit as he leaves the house.
In all likelihood, this t-shirt and the general notion of limiting gun control so as to improve safety is probably a shrewd political move by those who deplore limitations on their rights to bear arms. After all, these days ours is an America that is in constant fear of crime and violence. If the NRA and similar organizations can sell the repeal of gun control as the means by which to diffuse this fear, they stand to gain tremendous support. Yet, once again, we must hope the voters of this country are able to carefully distinguish a sound policy from a sound political move.
