Huff and Puff Looks at “More Guns = Less Crime” Argument With Shaky Logic

In writing for the Huffington Post, Dennis A. Henigan, Brady Center Vice President and author of Lethal Logic attempts to question the concept of “more guns = less crime.” Maybe he missed the fact that gun ownership continues to climb, yet crime is down? Instead he offers some interesting, but flawed points.

The first is actually one that makes you wonder if he really believes what he is saying:

“If criminals are deterred by the prospect that their victim may be armed, how can we account for attacks by armed criminals against other armed criminals? Why do armed drug dealers have anything to fear from other armed drug dealers? Why do armed gangs have anything to fear from other armed gangs?”

The answer is quite simple. People such as Otis McDonald, who brought his case to the Supreme Court, argued that he needed a gun to defend himself from home invaders. Those home invaders and burglars are not generally the type of thug gang bangers who are shooting each other in drug related turf wars.

The gangs are shooting at each other, and while they might not follow the code of “honor among thieves” most drug gangs don’t actually want to see people shot in the crossfire. They might not actually care, but the truth is that drug dealers are still businessmen of sorts and it is bad for business when a kid gets shot. The police crack down, the corners are cleared and for a while sales of product falls off. Thus it is bad for business. But the police are typically slower to respond when gangbangers merely shoot at each other.

If no “civilian” as they say is hurt or killed, it is often business as usual. This isn’t merely how it works in the movies and TV, but this is real life too.  

But Henigan shows his true colors in further adding:

“More guns means less crime only in the imaginary world of the ‘gun rights’ movement as it tries to push us toward an America where there is nowhere to go to escape the guns.”

This isn’t an imaginary world, or else the increase in gun sales over the last three decades would mean that crime should be through the roof. It isn’t. But Henigan needs to make his argument because he wants to live in an America where there are no guns. He’s clearly an idealist who somehow thinks that if all guns are banned those armed gangs he talks about will suddenly be unarmed as well. Now that’s an imaginary world indeed!