May 14, 2022
Dear editor;
Sadly, now that warm weather is finally arriving, we will hear the weekend death count from local shootings in Chicago and the surrounding area precipitously grow. Predictably, on the first warm, three-day weekend, the body count will double.
We are seeing more violence and robberies taking place in broad daylight and in more places, including in heretofore safe suburbs.
To find the right solution, good research demands isolating the variables. What appears obvious to some is often proven false through the scientific process. In the case of increased violence, what changed from 100 years ago? Why were we not seeing this level per capita of bloodshed 100 years ago?
Guns is one obvious variable.
One-hundred years ago, everybody had access to guns. Pastors and doctors kept loaded guns in their desk drawers and bartenders had one ready under the counter. Farmers had them everywhere. Conceal carry was not a novel idea originating when the state started issuing licenses. Government tried to regulate what was already a common practice.
My grandfather was born in the 1800s, and I inherited a small cache of his hunting rifles. They were just like tools in his plumbing shop, or lures in his tacklebox. If one broke, you could walk into any hardware story and pick up another.
During the bulk of the great history of the United States, firearms remained cheap and accessible.
It is clear to me that the free accessibility and widespread possession of firearms is not the variable that changed over the past century. If anything, someone could argue the opposite. Blaming guns is a scapegoat for those not willing to do the hard work of figuring out the true etiology. On a microlevel, just compare the current per capita shootings in Texas, an open carry state, and Illinois, where restrictions abound. If you want data, in 2021 the gun casualties in Chicago versus Houston, the country’s fourth largest city and Texas’ biggest, was 2:1, not in Chicago’s favor.
When restrictive gun laws are increased, the frequency of violent crimes rise. On the Federal level, we need to protect Second Amendment Rights.
Two other factors likely contribute to the increasing violence we see: The breakdown of the nuclear family/fatherlessness and disrespect for both authority in general, the police specifically, and laws. Our children are being taught in schools and public policy (e.g., sanctuary cities) that each individual may decide which laws must be obeyed.
If we believe public service campaigns are effective, the federal government as well as state governments should address the most foundational cause of violence: Broken, dysfunctional, families. No law will be as effective in reducing crime than increasing the number of children who are raised by an intact mother/father family.
Phil Wood, Carol Stream, Candidate U.S. House of Representative, 8th District
This is on target as far as it goes, but preserving families appears to be easier said than done. Any specific suggestions as to how to accomplish this laudable goal?
There’s also at least one other pertinent difference between today’s world and the gun filled world of 100 years ago: We didn’t send drug users to prison back then. Today, we have the advanced world’s highest murder rate, even though we have the highest incarceration rate which should in theory, keep many potential murderers out of circulation. How is that possible? Perhaps it’s because our prisons turn out more and more potential murderers. A prison record severely reduces a former inmate’s chances of being hired for legitimate work, but greatly enhances the available opportunities for making a living illegally. I can’t think of a more dependable way to lead a nonviolent offender into a world of violence.