RT:
In an experimental bid to determine whether wider gun ownership could lead to a decline in crime, a University of Houston graduate student and the Armed Citizens Project is looking to give away shotguns to residents of fifteen cities.
Kyle Coplen, 29, is the founder of the Armed Citizens Project, a group which announced that it will seek to expand its program into the Chicago Metropolitan Area at a recent National Rifle Association convention in Houston, Texas.
According to Coplen, the idea is to give out free, 20-gauge single-barrel shotguns to residents living in mid- to high-crime neighborhoods to see whether the presence of armed homes would cause a drop in crime.
“Gun-control advocates often argue that an increase in guns in an area will lead to an increase in crime, while gun-rights advocates often believe that fewer guns result in more crime. While both sides often argue that their opponents’ policies will result in more crime, gun-control proponents have largely been the victors when it comes to policy implementation,” explains the Armed Citizens Project’s website.
New measures in Congress to enact federal background checks for gun owners and the defeat of various other gun control measures indicate that in reality, gun control supporters do not have the upper hand in policy implementation.
While states such such as Connecticut and Colorado have recently passed new controls on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, elsewhere, such as in Texas and South Carolina, state legislatures are lobbying to attract gun industry investment and working on legislation to further bolster access to guns.
[…]
As for the Armed Citizens Project, according to Coplen the group intends to both screen participants for its shotgun give-away project and provide training for those selected.
“We’re not just tossing a bunch of shotguns into a community and walking away,” Coplen told Fox 26.
“What we’re doing is finding residents who are interested in protecting themselves. we’re not forcing guns on anyone,” he added.
[…]
In addition to offering free guns, the Armed Citizens Project is setting its sights on local gun buyback programs. The group hopes to dissuade those looking to hand over their guns with training sessions, or even have those weapons traded in for 20-gauge shotguns.
City and county-sponsored gun buybacks have recently become a point of contention for gun rights advocates. In Arizona, for example, Governor Jan Brewer recently signed a bill prohibiting cities and counties in that state from destroying guns collected through such programs, instead mandating that they be sold to licensed dealers.
The Armed Citizens Project hopes to distribute guns to hundreds of people living in major American cities by the end of the year. The program is already active in Houston and Tucson, Arizona, and in addition to Chicago they are also setting their sights on New York and Detroit. In Houston, local news channel WGN reports that 100 people have already signed up for the project.
Despite early success, Copley anticipates that getting his project started in a city such as New York, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a staunch proponent of gun regulation, will be a hurdle.
“I really don’t care what [Bloomberg] thinks. I can’t think of one thing he’s ever done besides being a successful businessman that I can agree with,” said Coplen to the NY Daily News.
New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has already shown skepticism of Copley’s project.
“You need a permit … so obviously you won’t be able to do it here,” Kelly told the Daily News on Monday.
Obviously.
After all, if you vote to set up a police state, it’s hardly surprising when the state attracts people willing to implement fascism and set themselves up as the uber cops.
In addition to broad discretion over gun permits, the New York Police Department requires a $140.00 shotgun permit fee, in addition to a fingerprinting charge of $91.50.
Coplen intends to request donations to help low-income city applicants secure the necessary permits.
“I guess the Bloomberg administration doesn’t want poor people to be able to defend themselves. I guess that right is left to the elites,” Coplen told Daily News.
Indeed. Colorado Republican legislators were unable to get passed an amendment to one of Bloomberg’s (that’s right, he’s not only NY Mayor, but he’s Colorado’s Dem-led assembly leader, as well!) gun control measures that would have waved fees for lower-income prospective gun owners, who are now to be subjected to a new 2nd Amendment poll tax.
But never forget: it’s Democrats who are for the little guy and the working poor.
The bottom line is this: Coplen’s study isn’t really necessary. Where guns are more readily available to law abiding citizens, gun crime goes down. That we pretend otherwise is a testament to a postmodern culture that allows a game of dueling perceptions to be waged — with the ascendant perception granted license to drive policy.
Facts, rationality, the simple logic of deterrence that history has shown again and again works (while, on the other end of the spectrum, history shows how gun control is often a forerunner to government-promoted slaughter) — these are bracketed from the discussions.
And until we insist upon policy being driven by those kinds of things rather than by emotional pleas and staged victim conferences, we’re likely to see our rights slowly and steadily chipped away.
Having said that, I’m glad Coplen is doing this. If only because it will guarantee at least a few more families living in urban war zones will feel empowered to help their circumstances, some perhaps for the first time ever.
(h/t JHo)
Unless they distribute a set amount per capita of the neighborhood, this supposed “study” won’t carry much weight.
For gun possession to be a general deterrent, the population has to have unlimited access to acquiring a weapon and the criminals have to believe that the odds are against them.
This only can happen if gun ownership is almost ubiquitous and well known. Such as being a cultural positive as in certain white neighborhoods.
Good luck to them and I wish them the best but as Kelly demonstrates unless it’s easy and therefore likely for someone to own a weapon, it won’t faze the criminals.
Criminals aren’t known for shying away from minimal risks.
I like this Coplen kid. Anybody willing to label his fellow Americans as responsible citizens who can be trusted to protect their homes and families is a welcome relief from all the busybodies who clutch their pearls out of fear that the poor dears might hurt somebody. (As they sit in their guarded, walled compounds, of course.)
I like it, but am pessimistic based on the following admittedly-cynical hypothetical:
Assuming that one of the features of the sorts of neighborhoods that Coplen wants to arm is a lack of personal responsibility – you can disagree on this premise but I’m not sure it changes the outcome – then one of these guns will be used by a kid whose parent failed to unload and/or secure it properly to unintentionally shoot him/herself, a sibling, or a parent. There will be wailing an gnashing of teeth and this will be used as evidence against gun rights enthusiasts. Coplen may well find himself brought up on charges regarding this eventuality.
Providing training is a good thing and will decrease the chances of an unintentional bad outcome but I still think this has an unhappy ending. I well and truly hope I am wrong.
Dishonest men must either fear the law or fear the people. If they’re allowed to fear neither, they might as well be the government.
Oh, wait…
I suspect the training could have just as much impact, or more, than the actual delivery of firearms.
How about we have gun training in schools, just like we have sex training? Demystifying guns would be a good thing.
Single shot 20 gauge isn’t much protection against hoodlums who work in packs, drugged insensate on crank or crack or meth. But the rat population will be mightily skittish after a few weeks I’ll warrant.
Single shot 20 gauge isn’t much protection against hoodlums who work in packs, drugged insensate on crank or crack or meth.
Pack members and meth aren’t much protection against a 20-gauge.
Just like Missouri’s former SecState, who was so worked up over requiring photo ID to vote because someone might have to pay $3 for a birth certificate in order to get the ID that she sued, but couldn’t ever seem to work up any “give a shit” that a concealed-carry license cost a minimum of $100.
I called the local rag onto the carpet about their similar editorial postion so many times that they finally started deleting my comments. Ditto their position on payday loan establishments–I kept asking why the Star hated poor people and wanted them to have absolutely no access to credit.
I sounds like you’re a troublemaker, Jim. We’ve got our eyes on you.
Gah! I->It
Gah? I thought you said ACK!
Perhaps he’s tired of catching too much ack-ack lately?
[…] country is so violent and vicious — where’s my Valiums and my mineral vitamin water? […]