Please note, while this is a school essay, it has many sources and facts that are quite interesting. Anybody on either side should read it, as I guarantee that they will discover something new. That said, this is written in response to chapter two of “Lethal Logic” by Henigan

When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns

I chose Chapter two, “When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns,” because I have been hearing this phrase for years. Ever since I was a young child, I heard those on the pro-gun side of the debate utilize this rhetorical phrase in order to scare the population into opposing gun control. At the same time, I heard the anti-gun people responding to the phrase, pointing out other countries where this situation has not occurred. I have always been conflicted when dealing with this phrase, and believe that by furthering my research into it, I can learn the truth behind these words.

In Chapter two, Henigan starts his take on this famous phrase by discussing national politicians. When Sarah Palin was the dark-horse Vice Presidential candidate, she uttered a statement that roughly translates into this phrase. Henigan uses this, not to show that the phrase is true, but to show that the general public, and our elected officials, utilize this concept on a regular basis.

Henigan then moves on to the logical problems with this phrase. He starts to examine the claim that criminals will arm themselves, regardless of the gun laws of their nation. To do this, Henigan first considers the fact that curbing gun access is not dependent on whether the criminals will follow it or not. Rather, the mere act of curbing gun rights for the dangerous people, the government is able to enforce and arrest previous and/or current criminals before they commit a crime with the gun.

Staying with this logic, Henigan then explains how the gun laws themselves could keep actual criminals from owning guns. “But what about the possibility that there are potentially violent individuals who are deterred from carrying guns by the illegality of doing so”(Henigan 42)? In this statement, Henigan is stipulating that the mere concept of breaking a law could keep those who would not normally violate the law from doing so with a gun. This would keep the drive-by criminals from getting guns, and thus committing more crimes.

Finally, Henigan finds a second logical problem with the phrase; he discovers that the argument implies that any law-abiding citizen will not be able to defend themselves from the criminal who still has a gun. He argues that main-stream society has various manners in which to protect themselves, and that guns are not needed to do this. Essentially, Henigan is stipulating that even if criminals get guns, the statement’s implications are not valid.

I believe that Henigan’s take on this phrase, specifically when dealing with the common usage of it, is valid and correct. In 1979, Edward Abbey started the mainstream adaptation of this phrase, with his essay known as “Abbey’s Road.¹” Ever since that moment, it is has been a common bumper sticker, a common statement, and a common sign on a fence. A simple Google search of the phrase, or even part of it, will bring up 369,000 hits of sites, articles, and blogs regarding this common concept. From this, it seems clear that Henigan’s views of the commonality and usage of this phrase are correct, and that the general public, and our elected leaders, use it daily.

When Henigan moves on to discuss the concept of a gun ban stopping drive-by criminals from committing gun crimes, I, yet again, must agree with his logic. Henigan argues that people who have the potentiality for violence or violent crimes, yet themselves are not criminals, would have no access to guns. In 1993, Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, more commonly known as “The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” was signed into law by President Clinton. In the years after the Brady Bill was introduced, including those after the Supreme Court struck down background checks, gun crime in the United States has decreased by 25%², compared to a 14% drop for all other violent crimes.

With an 11% difference in the rate of decline, it is clear that something unique is going on in the gun crime sector of violent crimes. The Brady Bill, which created waiting periods (until they were replaced federally with instant computer checks), clearly is one of the main causes of this decline. The waiting period that was implemented served its purpose by causing those who were simply in rage, but not actually criminals, from buying guns. By requiring them to cool down, their rage would disperse, and they would not add to the statistics. From these percentages, it is clear that Henigan is right yet again, and that gun control will indeed stop the drive-by criminal from ever becoming one in the first place.

Yet another area in which I agree with Henigan is his contention that gun laws will in fact reduce the number of guns used by criminals. Henigan believes that a reduction in the availability of guns will result in less guns being placed into the hands of criminals. In the United States, the number one manner for criminals to obtain a firearm is through straw-purchaser sales; that is, a friend, relative, or a neighbor will go into the store and purchase the gun for them³. By eliminating this legal method of sales, the number one method of illegally obtaining firearms would be removed, and thus, the criminals would be less likely to get one.

While this would only indicate less guns for the criminals, it still does not show that guns would be used less in violent crimes. That said, however, one can see the effect that similar gun bans have had on criminal access to guns based on cases from around the world. After their banning of firearms, the Australian Attorney General stated that “firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997.⁴” Likewise, after stricter English gun laws went into effect in 1996, the overall violent crime rate decreased by around 5%⁵.

By looking at the results of gun laws from around the world, one can see that stricter gun laws relate to less crimes committed with guns, as well as less violent crimes committed in general. This fact runs contrary to the expressed sentiment of the phrase, and leads credibility to Henigan’s take on it. Clearly, Henigan is right in saying that a reduction in the availability of guns (gun control) has a direct correlation with a reduction in crimes committed with a gun.

While it seems clear that Henigan’s views of this phrase have valid evidence behind them, they still suffer from a few weaknesses. For starters, Henigan seems to believe that criminals who get a gun would be caught by officers prior to using the gun in a crime. Current laws limit the ownership of guns for certain felons, criminals, and paroles. By using this, officers making a basic check-up, or even a traffic stop, would be able to find the gun and get the violent offender off of the street.

While this stipulation seems nice in theory, it suffers a few flaws. Firstly, it assumes that these criminals will have a plain-site gun, as well as have it stored in an easy to access location. It also assumes that the officers will act correctly, and that there will be a time between the purchase of the firearm and its use in crime, when the officers could find it. Obviously, neither of these are guarantees. In Sacramento, California, straw-purchasers purchased and supplied guns to known felons, all 32 of which were used in crimes⁶. Henigan’s contention that criminals with guns could be stopped is shown to be faulty in this and other instances. This clearly reveals a major weakness in Henigan’s presumption.

Another flaw in Henigan’s logic is that he believes that even without guns, Americans will be able to defend themselves against aggressors with guns. Henigan argues that a basic assumption of the phrase is that the population can not defend themselves without guns, and that they will be helpless if the criminals get the guns around the law (already shown that this will not happen). He believes that the population will indeed be able to defend themselves, and that they will not need guns for self-defense.

While there are various techniques for defending oneself from an aggressor with a gun, most of them require extensive training and/or physicality. Furthermore, with an average of 1.5 million uses of firearms as a form of defense per year⁷, it is clear that the American populace utilizes guns as a form of defense. Even if Henigan is correct is stipulating that one can defend themselves without guns, it is clear that guns are an essential defensive tool. As such, his contention is once again flawed.

While the phrase “If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns” might be a fun talking point for politicians and people in the gun-right battle, it is clear that the phrase is rather unfounded. A Henigan points out in chapter two, the assumptions and accusations of the phrase have no grounding, and they are not valid. Though there are a few problems with his logic, the overall argument is sound and well rounded. This common phrase clearly is overused, and, as evidenced in this chapter, should be removed from the public lexicon.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other