Skip to comments.

Posted on 11/06/2001 1:56:31 PM PST by Washingtonian

No Headline.

John R. Lott Jr., American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.

The largest mass killing in our history was just committed. Knives and box cutters were used, but no gun. Not one bullet fired. Yet U.S. Representative and Illinois gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich is using the threat of terrorism to call for banning more guns. The reason? Blagojevich labels .50-caliber rifles as the ''terrorist weapon of choice'' for Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and deems them too dangerous for Americans to own.

Blagojevich's explanation that terrorists prefer these guns is tenuous at best. During 1980s when Afghanistan ''freedom fighters'' were battling the Soviets who had invaded their country, it was the U.S. government that arranged the sale of 25 of these rifles to Afghans. There is no evidence that any more of these guns were ever sold, and of course thousands of other guns were provided and even Stinger missiles, but based solely on the evidence that our government also sold 25 of these particular guns, gun-control organizations and politicians are willing to label .50-caliber guns as a favorite of bin Laden's.

Fifty-caliber rifles are big, heavy guns, weighing at least 30 pounds and using a 29-inch barrel. They are also relatively expensive. Models that hold one bullet at a time run nearly $3,000. Semi-automatic versions cost around $7,000. They are purchased by wealthy target shooters and big-game hunters.

Needless to say, they are not in much demand by criminals. Indeed, during the decades these guns have been made, not one has ever been implicated in a murder or a wounding in the United States.

Other than the attempt to link .50-caliber rifles with terrorists, the decision to demonize these particular guns and not .475-caliber hunting rifles is arbitrary. The difference in width of these bullets is a trivial .025 inches. What's next? Banning .45-caliber pistols?

Labels are unfortunately very important in the gun control debate. For example, people's fears got stirred up about so-called ''plastic'' guns when Glocks first started being sold in the United States. At the height of the hysteria over plastic guns during the mid-1980s, Glocks were labeled by gun controllers as ''terrorist specials'' and fears were raised about terrorists getting them past airport metal detectors.

Of course, no guns have ever been produced without metal, nor is there any evidence that such guns can be made. Glocks, which are now very popular with police because of their lightweight plastic frame, contain more than a pound of metal.

Unfortunately, instead of calls for more gun control, the reverse is needed. We could learn something about responding to terrorism from Israel, and encourage more ordinary, responsible citizens to carry guns.

Israelis realize that the police and military can't be there all the time to protect people when terrorists attack. There are simply too many vulnerable targets. And even when the police or military are nearby, terrorists wait until the police and military leave the area before attacking. If attacks still go forward, those who are openly carrying a gun for protection become the first targets that the terrorists try to take out.

What Israel has found helpful in thwarting terrorist attacks is allowing law-abiding, trained citizens to carry concealed handguns. Today, about 10 percent of Jewish adults have permits to carry concealed handguns. In large public gatherings, a significant number of citizens will be able to shoot at terrorists during an attack. Concealed handguns put terrorists at a disadvantage because they don't know which citizens carry guns. During waves of terror attacks, Israel's national police chief will call on all concealed handgun permit holders to make sure they carry firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples in which concealed permit holders have saved lives.

Americans carry concealed handguns at only a fraction of the rate of Israelis, and to reach Israel's rate of permit holding, Americans would have to increase the number of permits from 3.5 million to almost 21 million. Thirty-three states, including Connecticut, have ''right-to-carry'' laws, which allow law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit if they are above a certain age and pay a fee, with about half these states requiring some training. Encouraging more states to pass such laws, and possibly lowering fees, could greatly expand the number of law-abiding citizens carrying guns.

Politicians, like Rod Blagojevich, risk looking pretty silly when they reflexively repeat what gun control organizations put out. But more important, their automatic response to take guns away from people risks lives.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.