Imagine a substance that disproportionately targeted the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities. In other words, this substance did significantly more damage to the poorest, the oldest, and those who lived in the most dangerous neighborhoods in major cities (typically, though unfortunately, people of color). You'd be against it, right?
The substance is gun control.
The poor are statistically far more likely to be victims of violent crime than the middle-class or wealthy. And while the wealthiest among us can afford to live in gated communities with private security, and many middle-class citizens can afford home security systems, the poorest among us can afford neither.
The elderly are currently targets of crime for a variety of reasons. Often they live on fixed incomes, so they are also poor. They tend to remain in neighborhoods they have lived in all their lives, often after those neighborhoods 'turn bad'. They are often weak, in poor health and physical condition, and unable to defend themselves against violence physically, so they appear to cowardly criminals to be safe targets. And increasingly, criminals who are addicted to drugs or want to sell those drugs have become aware that the elderly are often possess a variety of pain medications that will bring high prices on the street.
And of course, the inner urban areas of large US cities are often not just home to the poor, but also to racial minorities, so any crime that disproportionately affects the poor affects those of color most of all. Crime statistics bear this out.
So one could argue, just based on this evidence, that if one is against private gun ownership, one is in favor of something that disproportionately affects minorities, the poor, and the elderly. If you're against private ownership of guns, what have you got against these people?
The substance is gun control.
The poor are statistically far more likely to be victims of violent crime than the middle-class or wealthy. And while the wealthiest among us can afford to live in gated communities with private security, and many middle-class citizens can afford home security systems, the poorest among us can afford neither.
The elderly are currently targets of crime for a variety of reasons. Often they live on fixed incomes, so they are also poor. They tend to remain in neighborhoods they have lived in all their lives, often after those neighborhoods 'turn bad'. They are often weak, in poor health and physical condition, and unable to defend themselves against violence physically, so they appear to cowardly criminals to be safe targets. And increasingly, criminals who are addicted to drugs or want to sell those drugs have become aware that the elderly are often possess a variety of pain medications that will bring high prices on the street.
And of course, the inner urban areas of large US cities are often not just home to the poor, but also to racial minorities, so any crime that disproportionately affects the poor affects those of color most of all. Crime statistics bear this out.
So one could argue, just based on this evidence, that if one is against private gun ownership, one is in favor of something that disproportionately affects minorities, the poor, and the elderly. If you're against private ownership of guns, what have you got against these people?
