Gun Policy in the Aftermath of Littleton

From: Matthew Gaylor (freematt@coil.com)
Date: Sun May 30 1999 - 10:05:11 MDT


http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-26-99.html

May 26, 1999

Gun Policy in the Aftermath of Littleton

by Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

We live in an age of paradox. Media saturation following events like the
murders at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., makes it appear that
violence surrounds us. Yet the crime rate has been falling and school
shootings remain extremely rare. In contrast, the serious violence that
pervades some inner-city schools never makes the news.

Moreover, tragedies like Columbine almost always launch a spate of
counterproductive policy initiatives. Such as gun control. Although
inadequate morals rather than laws led to the Columbine murders, activists,
interest groups and politicians immediately dusted off their old proposals
to launch anew.

The temptation to ban Þrearms is understandable. Anything seems reasonable
in an attempt to save even a few people who die by bullets every year.

Yet private possession of weapons does not automatically lead to their
misuse: heavily armed societies like Israel and Switzerland have only a
fraction of our violent crime. Anyway, it is too late to try to disarm a
society where 240 million guns are in private hands.

Nor is disarmament a reasonable goal. It is easy to belittle the use of
Þrearms for hunting or target shooting, yet the right to engage in such
activities is the bedrock of a free society. Sportsmen rarely misuse their
weapons; those who don't should not be punished for the sins of the few who
do.

Using guns for self-defense is even more important. There is no more
fundamental right, especially in a world in which the police offer only
imperfect protection, at best. John Lott of the University of Chicago
Þgures that guns are used Þve times as often to prevent as to commit crimes.

Nor should one desire a world in which only state ofÞcials possess weapons.
Although a standing Army has replaced the militia as America's main defense
against foreign foes, the nation's Founders rightly distrusted giving
government a monopoly on deadly force. Tyranny may seem exceedingly
unlikely, but disarming average citizens makes it more rather than less
likely to occur.

Nevertheless, as predictable as the tides, Columbine led to a new campaign
to regulate Þrearms. Proposals include background checks at gun shows,
trigger locks, limits on the number of guns that can be purchased, a ban on
concealable Þrearms and increasing the legal age to buy Þrearms. Even some
past critics of gun controls have þipped in the face of the public
relations onslaught.

None of these proposals would have stopped the Columbine massacre, however.
As Lott points out, the killers ''violated at least 17 state and federal
weapons-control laws.'' A couple more on the books would have made no
difference.

But new rules could make crime more likely by disarming potential victims
and citizen cops. Research by Lott suggests that allowing people to carry
concealed weapons lowers the violent crime rate. Those who get a permit
from the local sheriff or police chief aren't likely to knock over the
local convenience store. However, they might prevent someone else from
knocking it over, and the bad guys know it.

Indeed, private individuals with guns - one a vice principal, the other a
banquet hall owner - ended two recent school shootings.

Massad Ayoob, head of the Lethal Force Institute, which trains police and
military personnel, observes: "Previously unthinkable dangers can sometimes
only be neutralized by previously unthinkable defenses.''

There is no evidence that waiting periods lower crime rates. Such
restrictions do, however, prevent people from buying a gun to protect
themselves from imminent danger. Nor should adults between 18 and 21 be
denied Þrearms, as if they were uniquely dangerous.

Trigger locks would save few lives a minuscule number of children die in
gun accidents, less than in many mundane household tragedies but would
hinder people from defending themselves. Individual owners can best balance
the one risk against the other.

Licensed dealers already must conduct background checks, including at gun
shows. Private individuals need not, but there is no evidence that
potential criminals þock to these very public gatherings to consummate
illegal deals.

There already are 20,000 different laws covering the purchase and use of
Þrearms. Criminals routinely violate one or more of these restrictions to
acquire a weapon. They aren't likely to hesitate breaking another one or
two. New controls and regulations would most burden the law-abiding.

The most potent response to gun crimes is to punish the criminal. Use of a
Þrearm should automatically increase one's sentence. Those who sell guns to
criminals or juveniles should be likewise punished. Existing laws should be
rigorously enforced.

Legislators should, however, pause before passing any new measures.
Tragedies like Columbine too often trigger policy-making by emotion. In
this case seeking to ''just do something'' is worse than doing nothing. It
is likely to make us all less safe.

This article appeared in Copley News Service, May 24, 1999.

© 1999 The Cato Institute

**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229
Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/
**************************************************************************



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:53 MST