John Lott Jr.: Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Can Make Us All Safer

AOL News ^ | June 28, 2010 | John Lott Jr.

[neverdem]

In a sharply divided 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that state governments are not able to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, stated that firearms are "essential for self-defense."

Predictably, gun control advocates bemoaned the ruling. But the court's decision is not just correct on constitutional grounds. It will help make the country safer.

Another View
The gun pushers lobby must be disappointed, since the Supreme Court ruling continues to allow for a wide variety of reasonable gun laws, says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Read what those are.

After the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case involving a gun ban in Washington, D.C., Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley called it "a very frightening decision," saying that governments have "a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms."

Yet D.C.'s murder and violent-crime rates plummeted after the court's decision to overturn that city's gun ban and its gunlocks.

Comparing crimes committed in D.C. from January to May 2010 to the same five months of 2008 shows 31 fewer murders -- a 43 percent drop.

During that same time period, Chicago, which had a gun ban in place, saw its murders drop by just over 5 percent.

In D.C., about 1,000 people now have permits to own handguns, and, with the gunlocks requirement removed, more than 70,000 people have permits for long guns that can now be used to protect themselves and their families. If 70,000 armed citizens can deter 31 murders and 327 violent crimes, imagine what can be accomplished if even more citizens are allowed to defend themselves.

In contrast, gun bans dramatically raised murder and other violent-crime rates in Chicago and D.C. when they were adopted, as shown in the third edition of my book "More Guns, Less Crime."

Before the ban, Chicago's murder rate was falling relative to other large cities, nearby counties and the U.S. as a whole. After the ban, however, Chicago's murder rate rose relative to all these other places. For example, if you compare murder rates among the 50 most populous cities, Chicago's murder rate went from equaling the average for the other cities in 1982 to exceeding it by 32 percent in 1992 and by 68 percent in 2002.

Similarly, Washington's murder rate soared after its handgun ban went into effect in early 1977 (there was only one year while the ban was in effect that the murder rate fell below the 1976 number, and that happened many years later, in 1985). Its murder rate also rose relative to other cities. Washington's murder rate rose from 12 percent above the average for the 50 most populous cities in 1976 to 35 percent above the average in 1986.

And this pattern isn't true in just the U.S. Around the world, gun bans have been consistently associated with increases in murder rates and violent crime.

Unfortunately, Chicago has promised to quickly adopt all the regulations that Washington, D.C., adopted in 2008 after its gun ban was struck down by the court, as well as some additional ones.

To get a handgun permit in D.C., applicants must pay fees over $550, make four trips to the police station and take two different tests. With the court's 2008 decision that all handguns can't be banned, D.C. went so far as to still ban all semiautomatic handguns that can hold a clip. Chicago plans to add a requirement that gun owners buy insurance that covers any incidents that might arise from the weapon.

Whether the new Chicago and D.C. fees "infringe" on an individual's right to own a gun for self-protection must still be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

But let's hope in the end Chicago will decide not to adopt such high fees and stiff regulations, which would give only the wealthiest the opportunity to defend themselves.

John R. Lott Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

To submit an op-ed or letter to the editor, write to opinion@aolnews.com. If you intend your letter to be published, please specify that and provide your name and location (city and state).

[neverdem]

Whether the new Chicago and D.C. fees "infringe" on an individual's right to own a gun for self-protection must still be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the info & essay!

[DCBryan1]

Any chance that we can overturn 922(0) of 18 USC???...I mean, the Hughes Amendment is a complete ban on a class of weapons, until 1986, very available to the public and VERY VERY rarely used to commit crimes.

[Joe Brower]

[Cobra64]

"D.C. went so far as to still ban all semiautomatic handguns that can hold a clip."

I don't know of any semi-automatic handguns that holds a "clip."

[madameguinot]

Anyone know what the crime rate in Minneapolis has done since they adopted conceal and carry about three years ago?

[blackie]

John Lott is right!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[itsahoot]

My brother had a hand gun that held a barrel clip that would hold 150 rounds. He called it a patriot, don’t know if that is accurate.

[gnarledmaw]

[Cobra64]

Ah yes, I forgot about the broom handle. :)

[BCR #226]

Paul Helmke... The 21st Century version of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Keep spewing your anti-civil rights garbage Paul... Don’t forget your burning cross and bed sheet.

[Blue Collar Christian]

The Garrand holds a clip. Not that the broomhandle holds a clip, but can be loaded using a clip. Otherwise, many MAGAZINES that fit into some firearms can be loaded using clips.

Mutton heads...politicians pretending to know anything.

[GOPJ]

...Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley called it ... very frightening ... governments have... compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms."

If Daley wants to reduce crime he should devise a system that encourages FEWER criminals.