Myths About Gun Control

Real Clear Politics ^ | October 19, 2005 | John Stossel

[texianyankee]

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people. "Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."

"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

[gondramB]

"The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth."

I am against gun control for law abiding adults.

But I have not seen anything like this from the CDC... I wonder what his source is.

[2banana]

Sammy ''The Bull'' Gravano has, by his own admission, sent 19 men to their graves. So it's safe to say that the former underboss of the Gambino crime family knows a thing or two (or 19) about guns and violence.

That's why his remarks about gun control, published in Vanity Fair, have resonance.

"Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

-- VANITY FAIR 9/99 page 165 Sammy “the Bull” Gavano

[ZULU]

Read my tagline.

[coloradan]

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r031002.htm

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

I noticed the same thing. I would also like to see the source.

Anybody?

[threeleftsmakearight]

Israel & Switzerland have some of the most lax guns laws in the world and their crime rates are very low...

on the other hand

Brazil & Russia have extremely strict gun laws and their crime rates are very high

[texianyankee]

"But I have not seen anything like this from the CDC... I wonder what his source is."

I am not sure, but maybe this is Stossel's reference?

CDCStudy

[elbucko]

But I have not seen anything like this from the CDC... I wonder what his source is.

Possibly this:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[Spok]

It always makes me angry when the CDC chimes in on gun control, which is a political, NOT a public health issue. I guess AIDS, TB, cancer, avian flu, etc., aren't keeping them busy enough. It's just another bureaucracy that has abandoned it's stated mission for politics. It should be defunded.

[Politicalities]

Man, I wonder how much we the taxpayers paid for this. Did you check out the conclusions? They really went out on a limb this one, really stuck their necks out and put their reputations on the line with their bold, sweeping pronouncements. Pay particular attention to column 2.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

thanks

[Sam Cree]

bookmark

[ncountylee]

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

Waste of money, as always.

[texianyankee]

Lots of insufficient evidence due to insufficient number of studies......

[NRA1995]

I don't have source material at my fingertips right now, but I remember reading that CDC concluded that the Brady Bill has reduced suicides in men over 55; I'm not joking about this...

[oyez]

Liberals believe that outlawing guns will eliminate guns. There also believe that if abortion is made illegal abortion will still exist in a black market. Why is this?

[elbucko]

That's why his [ Sammy ''The Bull'' Gravano]remarks about gun control, published in Vanity Fair, have resonance.

The "Sullivan Laws" of New York city have their origins in the need for organized crime to be able to go about its affairs unimpeded by armed citizens. In 1911 New York State Senator Sullivan was a member of the "mob" and passed legislation according to their needs. When the mob ran up against armed resistance to their protection and extortion rackets, they began to loose soldiers when shop keepers were armed. Sullivan passed a law that "protected" the protection rackets by disarming the shopkeeper.

[texianyankee]

I have never heard it put that way. Excellent point!

[oyez]

It looks like somebody got a nice chance to catch up on thier sleep.

[elbucko]

"Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness"

That won't even get a search warrant unless you bribe the judge.
Which, of course, is what gun control is really about, money.

[RKV]

Sorry, but while firearms ownership is widespread (including full auto weapons) in the countries you mention (Israel and Switzerland) their gun laws are not lax.

"Even if you qualify for the right to buy a gun, getting to the point where you can actually purchase and take one home is fairly grueling. After a person puts in the application to the Interior Ministry, it takes up to about six weeks to check out his background and situation to determine if should get the license. If his request is accepted, he is notified by mail. He takes the notice of approval to a gun store and buys a gun - but he doesn't take the gun home yet. First, he has to take a shooting instruction lesson, that lasts about an hour, which concludes with the firing of 50 bullets at a target 10 meters away, and, in nearly all cases, the instructor's signature that the shooter has shown reasonable proficiency. Then the prospective gun owner takes the instructor's signature, plus the gun registration, and a letter attesting to a clean bill of health from his family doctor, back to the Interior Ministry which, if everything checks out, hands him his license. He then takes the license back to the gun store, which gives him the purchased gun it's been holding for him. Now he owns it, can carry it wherever he goes, and can renew it every three years by firing another 50 bullets at a licensed shooting range." http://www.jpfo.org/derfner-people.htm

Also the crime rate in Israel is not low - admittedly this is due to murders committed by Islamofascists. Brazil and Russia have high crime rates it is true, but their gun laws are less strict than say the UK.

I agree that self-defense is a human right and the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states - therefore the majority of the so-called "gun laws" on the books now are unconstitutional. That said, we need to get our facts straight and I believe that your comments are in error. Flame on.

[x5452]

The second amendment was designed so that the people could take defense against a tyrannous government, as they had just done against england, and has nothing to do with government run armies, regardless of naming semantics.

[Question_Assumptions]

For those liberals who like to claim that if only gun control were universal in the US and there were fewer guns, it wouldn't be so easy for criminals to get them, Japan has draconian anti-gun laws and it's still possible to find black market guns there if you want one. Let's just say that the fall of the Soviet Union opened up new market opportunities for groups of people well versed in ignoring the law and smuggling goods.

[goldstategop]

What's so horrible about guns? Even John Kerry had to pretend to dress up as a hunter. Liberals bewail assault weapons but it was the musket that won the day at Bunker Hill. Just ask Denny Crane. Liberals can't even hunt. And those who seek to disarm Americans are no friends of freedom.

(Denny Crane: "Gun Control? For Communists. She's A Liberal. Can't Hunt.")

[RKV]

The militia (as opposed to the army or select militia [now the National Guard]) has three constitutionally specified missions. Article 1 Section 8 (on the legislature) says Congress can "calling [sic] forth the militia to [1)]execute the laws of the union, [2)] suppress insurrections and [3)] repel invasions." The Federalist Papers deal with the issue you describe - defense against tyranny.

[Jim Verdolini]

"But I have not seen anything like this from the CDC... I wonder what his source is."

Wrong group, right conclusions

It was teh national Academies of Science:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/

[blau993]

Israel and Switzerland admittedly have low crime rates and almost universal gun ownership. However, both have the advantage of being relatively prosperous nations with fairly homogenous populations. Neither has the pockets of extreme poverty and disaffected minorities you would find in Russia, Brazil, or even the United States. The correlation between their minimalistic gun laws and their crime rates is not all that strong.

A much stronger argument can be made (and is made by scholars such as John Lott) by comparing crime rates in counties in the US which allow concealed carry to nearby counties that do not allow it. Rates of violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery and assualt) tend to fall in the former and almost simultaneously to rise in the latter. Criminals may be stupid, but they are not dumb. They commit their crimes in the places where they stand the least chance of encountering an armed victim.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Israel & Switzerland have some of the most lax guns laws in the world and their crime rates are very low...

Actually, Switzerland's gun laws are anything but "lax" -- they require every adult male to keep a full-auto machine gun in his home. Funny how the Nazis skipped Switzerland . . .

[grayforkbeard]

Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.



That sums up why all prohibition laws don't work. With enough $ and the right connection you can buy a slave. Sex, Drugs and guns are easy.

[mountainlyons]

It is safer in Baghdad where almost every one has a gun than it is in the "gun control" hight crime cities in the US of A.

Happiness is a warm gun and a tight group!

[doggieboy]

I never owned or cared to own a gun. After Katrina hit the "Big Sleazy", my opinion changed. I'm looking at my owners manual for my new Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun as I write this. For Christmas I am getting a Walther P38.

[traviskicks]

Interesting, some expanded thoughts on the matter:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/gunsandcrime.htm

[rhombus]

The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right.

This was my favorite part. I can't count how many times liberals have given me this National Guard bit.

[ctdonath2]

They (or some equivalent group; I don't have the report handy) did exactly that kind of study, reporting in hundreds of pages of detail. The results were clear. They didn't like the results, so they said they needed to study it more.

[xsrdx]

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Oh, now that is good.

[oyez]

And those who seek to disarm Americans are no friends of freedom

As a city dweller, If we had to give up our arms the gangs and thugs would still have theirs. And knowing the police have gang ties and/or afraid of the gangs, guess who would have the freedom.

[oyez]

In this day and time the President has more control of the National Guard than the govenors did before the era of 9-11. I would consider the NG to be part oa a standing army and not a militia. I would remind those 2nd Amendment protestors that because of that fact there is no "militia."

[DaveCooper]

BTTT

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

I would remind EVERYONE that "gun control" means hitting what you shoot at. Ain't no law that can impose real or imagined gun control.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one. - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764.

[marine86297]

btt

[Annabees]

"Houses don't kill people. People kill people."

I think these laws limiting usage of guns comes from the desire to lower crime rates, but there's also a failure to realize that guns aren't like horses who knock their riders off their backs, thus injuring the hapless rider. Thinking it would be the end of the world if everyone owned guns...there's no fear of guns. There's fear of the people who use them. It's just no one's ballsy enough to admit it.