By Master Chief Special Warfare Operator Larry A. Wilske, USN (Ret.)
California - -(Ammoland.com)- In California, each year over 16,000 weapons are confiscated from criminals and destroyed. In an era when “Gun Control” is the constant media message, and criminal gun violence most seriously affects lower income neighborhoods, one has to ask why we are destroying perfectly good firearms.
We see the cost and effects of gun control in those areas where it is most strenuously implemented and enforced, and the result is more human suffering among people already forced to exist at the lowest economic rungs.
The people most affected by gun control by state and federal governments frequently cannot afford the one thing that could alleviate a great deal of the problem — a firearm owned for defensive purposes.
Does restricting our 2nd Amendment rights cause a rise in gun violence?
To answer this, we need only examine two of the most gun-restrictive cities in our country: Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. Both of these cities, until recently repealed by the Supreme Court under the Heller (Washington, D.C.) and MacDonald (Chicago) decisions, had some of the most intrusive and restrictive gun laws in our nation. It might well be said more criminals had firearms than honest citizens — certainly the number of gun crimes seemed to indicate such, since the murder rates in these two cities were among the highest in the nation.
In lower-income neighborhoods (Chicago actually showed a much lower income base for minorities), the residents could not afford a gun, or afford to go through the painstaking and aggravating process of procuring and possessing one legally. The violence shown in statistics had an even more tragic side — the victims were the very people the gun laws were purportedly designed to protect. Those that live in the poor neighborhoods are most often the victims of violent crime, and most need the means of defending themselves.
So accepting this proven fact, and having seen through statistical surveys that crime is lessened in strata of societies that allow firearm ownership, what might we do to shift this deadly tide of violence? With 16,000 weapons confiscated each year in California alone, and the untold sums of money used to destroy these – not counting the funds used purportedly to protect the populace from gun-toting criminals through effective law enforcement (obviously, from the figures, not working) — one plan could save millions of dollars annually by recycling firearms formerly used for illegal purposes.
These guns could now be used as a first line of defense for homes and families that could not afford a quality firearm in the first place.
Most law enforcement agencies have ar- morers, ranges and firearms instructors. It would be a simple task to take weapons from criminals, assess them for future use and donate them directly to law-abiding, lower income families. These families could be provided with basic training in firearms use, use of deadly force and the laws pertain- ing to responsible firearms ownership.
If applied correctly, such a program would be a huge benefit for the respective departments in community good will, and would assure these agencies of supportive citizens who benefited from the training and owner-ship of quality firearms. The effect on crime and criminals would be apparent and immediate. With more families armed and a more responsive citizenry, criminals would be put on notice that their activities would now have penalties. This is in stark contrast to when citizens had to lock themselves in their homes and rely on the thin blue line of police to protect them against the thugs and muggers who owned the streets.
Once it became obvious that criminal activities would result in retaliatory responses by legally armed citizens, street crime would correspondingly be reduced —as has been shown repeatedly when the citizenry armed themselves. Citizens begin taking actions to protect themselves, rather than relying on and incarceration.
It is fiscally responsible, and it reduces gun violence dramatically. the police, and crime noticeably decreases when the predators realize the prey now fights back.
This paradigm shift would lower the cost to society in the form of diminished police action, fewer criminal prosecutions, less incarceration, and the cost of destruction of perfectly good firearms. It seems simplistic, but the facts speak for themselves. Where citizens are able to defend themselves, and do so, crime is lessened — with a corresponding reduction in violence and cost to society.
Of course, this proposal would be controversial and details on identifying worthy, law-abiding individuals and families would have to be worked out as well as the costs of training and equipping such families. But the costs of such a program would prove far less than the costs of continued increasing crime with the corresponding costs of manpower, equipment and incarnation.
One other thing to remember: as mentioned earlier, the benefits of good will from the community would far outweigh any costs at implementation, even when those are less than the costs of the continuing suffering of crime by the individuals most affected by it.
As we all know, an armed citizenry maintains an honest government, supports law enforcement and protects our families from the attacks and incursions of armed thugs bent on relieving us of our lives and hard-won possessions.
As so succinctly stated by the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society.”
Master Chief Larry Wilske is running for Congress in the 53rd Congressional District of California. To get more information on his campaign, go to www.WilskeforCongress.com
Hat Tip: Soldier of Fortune Magazine