"Guns don't kill people. Women don't kill people; men kill people." —Penn Jillete
Violent crime has been a problem for all societies in all eras. Violent crime in America kills over 20,000 people per year and injures many more. Worse, we are evolved to fear violence; there wasn't much point to fearing germs in 20,000 BC, but physical attack was something you could do something about. Thus violence is the demagogue's best ally (according to Hitler, who was in a position to know); fear of violence will persuade most people to give up their freedom to a "leader" who promises to protect them. Today's politicians have developed systems to maintain violence at levels much higher than in 1900 (when some people actually didn't have enough food, and you might have fairly expected them to turn to violence). Chief among domestic violence-promotion programs is Drug Prohibition, but Aid To Dependent Dictators, the various Victim Disarmament laws, the Broken Home Subsidy, inner-city "schools" that confer no useful job skills, etc. etc. all play their part. Until we dismantle the entire apparatus of the welfare/warfare state, there will be a surplus of violence. We must find ways to cope with high levels of violence for decades, at the least.
Genetic Profiling for Violent Tendencies
Violence is not randomly distributed. There are genetic markers that are highly correlated with violence. One set of genes is present in 96% of the incarcerated violent criminals in the US, yet is present in only 49% of the general population. These same genes are also present in the majority of Arab suicide bombers and Canadian hockey players. There is a simple, low-cost, 99.99% accurate genetic screen to find the carriers of these "violence genes". There is even a technical name for this gene complex: in molecular biology, we call it the "Y Chromosome". I say that it is time that we use our knowledge of this genetic marker to reduce crime; any other course can only lead to more unnecessary deaths. Think of the children!
How can we use our knowledge of this statistical tendency to save lives? We could execute all people with "XY Syndrome" and reproduce the species solely by cloning. Removing the XY complex from the human genome would drastically reduce the level of violent crimes. There would also be additional benefits to public health. The average life span would go up by about six years. The incidence of genetic disease would fall, as XY sufferers are orders of magnitude more likely to come down with X-linked defects.
While this would certainly reduce the levels of certain crimes, it would also inflict injustice on billions of XY Syndrome carriers; most of these genetically challenged people live peaceful, productive lives. One possible workaround is suspended animation. Once cryonic suspension is perfected, the XY population could be frozen and stored until genetic cures are available. While this would remove some moral objections, there would still be a few libertarian extremists who would feel that their rights were being violated. Also, a government powerful enough to round up and deanimate three billion people might be difficult to keep within Constitutional boundaries. These same difficulties face even the least intrusive preemptive measures, such as fitting all the XY with computer- monitored explosive collars.
There are also uncertainties involving cost of cloning, stability of social structures in a pure XX society, and the vulnerability of a high-tech society with no "built-in" reproductive ability. Fortunately, none of this matters, because there is a superior approach available.
Arm The Chicks
The famous (and therefore authoritative) performer Penn Jillete wrote an essay for the Cato Institute in which he outlined this strategy:
To expand on Jillete's concept, the idea is that while we cannot initiate force against the XY population, we can utilize the reduced violent tendency of the XX population without violating rights or increasing centralized government power. By arming and training the XX population, we would deter crime and war without risking the transfer of dangerous skills to the potentially violent.
Current Policy = Disarm the Victims
Currently, of course, much political effort goes into disarming female victims. Gun control laws in major cities do nothing to keep 9mms and AK-47s away from male career criminals, but they are very effective in removing the .38 revolvers from the purses of career women in the subways.
Gun control laws have selectively targeted weapons that would be suitable for women. The MP5 submachine gun is the perfect weapon for Grandma: short, light, easy to shoot accurately. But unless Grandma joins a government agency and puts on a black suit, she can't buy a new MP5. The BATF will let her buy an elephant gun or a thirty-pound .50 Barrett, however.
We can't blame (quite) everything on government, either. Many private organizations provide "self-defense" classes for women that teach the use of whistles and undersized tear gas canisters, but not the art of pistol shooting. There might be some point to whistle- blowing in a city full of armed women fearlessly walking the streets, but not in a modern American city full of frightened sheeple hiding in their apartments.
Presumably this idea that women can't use "real" weapons is a remnant from tribal times, when club-swinging muscle power was all-important and women were a subclass, the property of victors. The "woman as helpless victim" model has been obsolete since the Colt revolver went on sale in the 1800s, and it's time everyone (especially, one would think, the "women's" organizations) got over it. Women should not be second-class citizens. Nor should women abandon their responsibility to protect their children with something more serious than a whistle.
Getting Serious About Crime And War
If we were really serious about reducing violence, then America's laws would look like this:
1. All non-felon XX citizens would have national open-carry and concealed-carry rights, on aircraft, subway stations, and everywhere else. If even 1% of US women were armed, the ecological niches for violent criminals and terrorists would be drastically narrowed.
2. All XX citizens would have their 2nd Amendment rights restored. (For all Congresspersons reading this, that means that they could keep and bear arms, i.e. things that go bang, kaboom, zap, etc.). XX citizens would be less likely to use their handheld anti-tank weapons to rob banks, but a hundred million household missiles should deter the Mexican or Canadian military forces from conquering the land of the free.
Of course, few current politicians are going to advocate measures that might actually reduce the "need" for government protection. However, if more XX persons take responsibility for their own and their children's defense, matters will be taken from the politicians' hands. If the mothers of America all knew how to shoot, Congress would have a hell of a time getting support for victim disarmament laws . . . especially since violence levels would be so low that the "crime issue" wouldn't be much of a vote-getter.
If you are an experienced shooter of either chromosome type, make a point of taking a hoplo-disadvantaged XX person to the shooting range. (That would be a shooting range with no redneck idiots and no .454 Casull loudenboomers). Get a nice .22 revolver or auto with small grips and short trigger reach (e.g. S&W; model 63 with Pachmayrs), some eye and ear protection, and some criminal cans or terrorist balloons; and plink. The world will be a safer place for it.
Other Works by Bill Walker
from The Laissez Faire Electronic Times, Vol 2, No 25, June 30, 2003