Whither Gun Control?

[MitchHankSauer]

Whither Gun Control?

Sunday, May 23, 2004
By John R. Lott, Jr.
What is happening to the gun control (search) movement?


This month, the Million Mom March (search) in Washington drew an anemic showing of only 2,000 people, while this year, all of the Democratic presidential candidates— however unenthusiastically— spoke of Americans’ Second Amendment (search) right to own guns. These are just a few of the signs that the facts finally seem to be catching up to the movement. The future for the movement looks even worse.

Whether the subject is concealed handgun laws (search) or bans on semi-automatic so-called “assault weapons,” (search) gun control debates have been filled with apocalyptic claims about what will happen if gun control is not adopted. One common prediction is that laws allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon will result in crime waves, or permit holders shooting others. However, with 37 states now having right-to-carry laws (search), and another nine states letting some citizens carry, permit holders have continually shown themselves to be extremely law-abiding. It is becoming more and more difficult to attack those laws.

Disarray among gun controllers is becoming common, even on one cornerstone of the gun control movement — the semi-automatic gun ban. Take the statements made on National Public Radio by a representative of the Violence Policy Center (search) just one week after the assault weapon extension was defeated in the Senate this March.

NPR described the VPC as "one of the more aggressive gun groups in Washington." Yet the VPC's representative claimed: “If the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn’t pass, it doesn’t pass.”

The NPR reporter noted: "[the Violence Policy Center's representative] says that's all the [assault-weapons ban] brought about, minor changes in appearance that didn't alter the function of these weapons.”

Yet, before the Senate vote the VPC had long claimed that it was a "myth" that "assault weapons merely look different. The NRA and the gun industry today portray assault weapons as misunderstood ugly ducklings, no different from other semi-automatic guns. But while the actions, or internal mechanisms, of all semi-automatic guns are similar, the actions of assault weapons are part of a broader design package. The 'ugly' looks of the TEC-9, AR-15, AK-47 and similar guns reflect this package of features designed to kill people efficiently."

So why the sudden disarray after the Senate defeat? Simply, gun-control groups' credibility is on the line and they are getting cold feet. With no academic research showing the assault weapons ban reduces crime, gun control groups realize that soon it will be obvious to everyone that their predicted horror stories about "assault weapons" were completely wrong.

Internationally, dramatic gun control victories in countries such as England, Australia, and Canada are also unraveling.

— Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in January 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. Yet, serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29 percent higher than 1996; robbery was 24 percent higher; murders 27 percent higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

— Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar after its Port Arthur gun control measures (search) in late 1996. Violent crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1996. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 45 percent.

— The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England and Australia was twice the rate in the US.

— Canada has not gone anywhere near as far as the United Kingdom or Australia. Nevertheless, their gun registration system is costing roughly a thousand times more than promised and has grown to be extremely unpopular, with only 17 percent of Canadians in a poll release this week supporting the system. Nor does the system seem to be providing any protection. The Canadian government recently admitted that they could not identify even a single violent crime that had been solved by registration.

Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the laws and the criminals don’t, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. While the debate is hardly over, gun control is just another example of government planning that hasn’t lived up to its billing. And like other types of government planning, eventually its failures become too overwhelming to ignore.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120638,00.html


John Lott, Jr., is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and is the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2004).

[tptplayer]

John Lott is one of our strongest and most respected advocates. It is great that his writings are starting to be picked up by the "popular press".

["DoubleAction"]

Thanks Mitch; Shows when uncovering the facts, the media can't escape by hiding their heads in the sand anymore.

[MitchHankSauer]

I posted this once before but it goes hand in hand with the above post.


Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad
by John Stossel - ABC News asposted in his segment on the following webpage: abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123.html


America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the accidents kill thousands of kids every year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun control.

But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime. The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.

A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with them; it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.

Many people are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.

But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime.

[tptplayer]

DoubleAction said:

Thanks Mitch; Shows when uncovering the facts, the media can't escape by hiding their heads in the sand anymore.

We have a few advocates but most of the media already have their minds made up and don't want to be confused by the facts.

[Tdrake2]

Have you read his new book "The Bias Against Guns"? If not go pick it up -- it is worth the money and the time. I got an autographed copy when he came to speak at our school last fall. He was even better in person than his articles are -- we had some anti-gun people speak out and he answered them really well with lots of facts and figures to back up every answer he gave. It was very impressive.

Thanks -- Tdrake

[Arclightstrike]

The question that I have, and perhaps many of you will have: What is the CDC, in the past a prime purveyor of "junk science," doing reviewing studies of various schemes of gun control? They should stick to finding cures for MS, Diabetes, Liberalism and many other nasty diseases and conditions...

["DoubleAction"]

Arclight; Your right, The CDC in Atlanta is only minutes from where I live. In 1976 I returned from the Far East, rather suddenly, and was advised to contact the CDC in Atlanta, if I had reason that I might be carrying a virus. I contacted CDC, and they referred me to some county operated dipstick health clinic. I was working for the Federal Government at the time and felt that this was below the standard of treatment for incoming arrivals from foreign territories. The Health Departmnent never ran any blood work, or cultures on me at the time. I ended up going to a private physician for screening. Since then, we have witnessed many diseases peak to epidemic levels in this country because of such incompetance.

[Arclightstrike]

DA, not only are these CDC people a bunch of jackasses, but they are also a tool of the "gun control" cult (Feinstein, Schumer, et al). They are the bunch that has tried to portray "gun violence" as a disease .

I remember two years ago they called my phone number and pretended to be conducting a survey on general healthy habits or some such. They began by asking about stuff like how much exercise do I get every week, what kinds of healthy foods I eat and how many times a week, etc. Then they asked whether I have firearms in the house. That was when they were politely and firmly told that their survey was over.

For a while there was also a trend among some liberal doctors to ask patients, during routine physicals, whether they kept firearms in the home and how they were stored, with the cover of being concerned about their patients' safety in the home. We need to be vigilant about these kinds of backdoor attacks on our Constitutional rights, because the enemies of Liberty have become sneakier in their tactics.

Organizations like the CDC should be required, at least annually, to show proof that they are either conducting real research or developing effective protocols for dealing with real diseases, or have their publicly-financed funding summarily discontinued. With the kind of advice they hand out, they cause more problems than they solve.