Posted on 02/01/2007 9:21:51 AM PST by neverdem
The anti-gun op-ed by Dr. Clifford M. Herman ("Bowing down to NRA is dangerous," Jan. 23) certainly fits in with the renewed push by the P-I for more gun laws. As with previous articles, this one demonizes the NRA, offers anecdotal insights and questions the meaning of the Second Amendment. What it does not do is address the essential question.
Honest legislators must ask: Which gun laws, if any, will truly reduce violence? Thanks to the Clinton administration and the Centers for Disease Control, we have a pretty good idea. A group of scientists reviewed the extensive literature on the effectiveness of gun laws and released its report in 2003. With so many gun laws enacted in the latter half of the 20th century, there were numerous examples to study, but they were unable to find convincing evidence that any gun laws have ever been effective.
Their search included Herman's 1988 Seattle-Vancouver study. Given that Herman is vociferously anti-gun, what are the chances that his study was scientifically sound and unbiased? That's right, and virtually every anti-gun study ever done was created by the same kind of people and funded by openly anti-gun foundations. Their built-in bias makes them useless for public policy debate.
Washingtonians are not stupid. We are aware that gun laws have failed miserably wherever they have been tried. Anyone who knows how to visit the FBI Web site can tell you that the most dangerous places in the United States often are the places with the strictest gun laws. Gun laws overseas have been no more successful. Asking the Legislature to give us more is a colossal waste of time and an insult to our intelligence.
The real reason for the resurgence of anti-gun rhetoric is a long-running culture war between the two sides of the gun debate. From 1994 until the 2006 elections, the once powerful gun control lobby got kicked around by the NRA. Now that they have new friends in office, they want some payback.
Knowing that gun laws don't work, what is the anti-gun lobby to do with its renewed political influence? Here in Washington, it is promoting a bill that will end private sales of guns at gun shows. But wait, the Department of Justice tells us that less than 1 percent of crime guns were purchased at gun shows, so why support such a useless law? The answer, in a word, is payback.
You see, although gun shows are not a significant source of crime guns, they are both a tool and symbol of the gun rights movement. People gather to discuss their hobby, curse the gun grabbers and enjoy spirited haggling over the price of treasured objects. They also recruit new members and raise funds for gun rights organizations. What better target for the wrath of those who despise guns and gun owners?
The concept of reducing violence by passing gun laws is a fallacy, as evidenced by several decades of failure. The only proven solution is to put criminals in prison and keep them there as long as you can. This is not a popular way to spend tax dollars, hence the opening for culture warriors to hijack the lawmaking process for their own ends.
Michael S. Brown, O.D., of Vancouver is a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; www.dsgl.org.
Now wait a minute. I can think of ONE! Kennesaw, Georgia has a GUN LAW that MANDATES each and every home in the town have a working firearm in good order. Exceptions allowed for religious purposes. Kennesaw already had a low rate of violence, but when that passed in the 80's the crime rate dropped to almost nil.
This piece ignores the reality that in order to achieve World Order ~tinfoil hat glows, little propeller on top spins madly~, the USA must be unilaterally disarmed. Look at the White House web site and check on the progress of the North American Security Zone and trans Texas Super Highway, both of which will effectively remove our national borders with Mexico and Canada. Q: Do our neighbors to the north and south like our gun laws? Do they recognize the validity of the entire US Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights?
~Pant Pant~....~tinfoil hat cools, propeller slows~
No Guns ~ No Rights!
Is that actually true? Anti-gun laws surely fail...but what about laws which ENCOURAGE ownership and practice?
To say whether something works or not, it's necessary to identify what it's supposed to do. If the objective of gun laws is to reduce citizens to serfs, I would suggest that while they are not as effective as Boxer et al. would like, they are nonetheless effective enough to be dangerous.
When the term "gun laws" is used, it is typically in reference to laws that are hostile to individual gun ownership and in defiance of the Constitution. It was in that context I replied.
Oh sure, I inderstood...I was musing. I was aware of the Kennesaw example, and the limited examination of the effect of widespread CCW, but my comment was on the effect of actually PROMOTING gun ownership and training like in the Kennesaw example rather than the passive effect of simply refraining from violating civil rights.
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.