http://www.insightmag.com/news/538606.html
Issue: 11/11/03

The Last Word
By Woody West

U.S. Gun-Control Laws Don't Save Lives

Blessed are the experts who keep our complex hive buzzing - or most of the experts, much of the time. But these necessary specialists, in their noisy swarms, also can obscure social and political questions that are intricate enough to begin with. Thus, there is a point when the shaman of the social sciences should be disregarded and mother-wit mobilized.

For instance, it does not require overcredentialed academics to commit study after study to conclude whether the graphic violence that is routine on television and in the movies has an effect on young viewers: It unarguably affects them. At the very least it dangerously denies the pain that always is part of violence in the real world.

An even more obvious area of attention is firearms. To those of liberal piety, gun control is not just the first commandment but all 10 (they have tossed the Biblical version over the side anyhow). Rid America of the curse of firearms, they loudly proclaim, and no one ever need lock his doors at night. That's nonsense. Gun control as these zealots conceive it would be effective only in disarming the law-abiding.

In the fierce argument over firearms control, a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report will cause heartburn to the ban-the-gun brigades. As the Associated Press reported, "A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun-control laws - including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons - found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence." The analysts also noted after their review of 51 gun laws that "firearms-related injuries" in this country have declined since 1993 despite the fact that "approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year."

Those of us with limited confidence in centralized power will not be astounded by the report, nor by the CDC's conclusion that it can reach no more declarative judgment because many of the gun-control laws it reviewed were inconsistent, overly narrow in scope or poorly executed. That the CDC even undertook this three-year review was a liberal ploy that has led to classifying gun violence as a public-health issue. It doesn't follow that government do nothing. But it must legislate with a sensible perspective of limitations and proportionality. That's a difficult chore, of course, given the ingrained tendency of democratic legislators to leap at the loudest noise.

With gun control, however, there literally are thousands of restrictive laws on various U.S. statute books, and yet the cry constantly is for more legislation. It's a sure indication of how futile laws can be when, on a given issue, more and more statutes on the same issue are passed to try to find a workable equation, and yet nothing changes. Some basic gun regulations clearly meet the criterion of social consensus - denying possession of a firearm to thugs and loonies. As a corollary, it's hard to argue against a modest waiting period so a jurisdiction can find out if the purchaser has, say, ever shot up a neighborhood tavern - though many view even these cautions as thin-edge-of-the-wedge.

Beyond those few basically reasonable constraints, American opinion doesn't exhibit much obvious agreement on firearms. Therefore, whatever restrictive measures manage to become law through the antigun lobby's muscle likely will be flawed in one of the ways that defeated the CDC's efforts to reach a definitive perspective.

Guns historically are an intimate part of our culture. This might change in decades to come as we become ever more thickly urban and as hunters become not your next-door neighbor but more a curiosity. Until that day comes, the grim foes of all firearms will bleat for more controls and compliant politicians will try to add to the pile of laws.

There's another facet to this issue - the spread of "right-to-carry" laws. There now are 36 states in which permits to carry concealed weapons are available to the ordinary citizen with a clean record (Missouri last month passed its law over the governor's veto). The premise of right-to-carry or "shall-issue" statutes is impeccably logical: Predators may be more circumspect if they have reason to think their intended "victims" might have a loaded pistol in pocket or purse - or, if the thugs aren't that smart, it may not be the law-abiding citizen who gets hurt.

Opponents of right-to-carry laws volubly have contended that if significant numbers of individuals legally can carry weapons there would be a high body count as a result of poor judgment or accident. That does not seem to have been the case in the two states which have had such laws the longest, Florida and Texas. Meanwhile, proponents contend incidents in which crimes are prevented by armed citizens are underreported - indeed, ignored by the media. John R. Lott Jr., resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a strenuous supporter and student of these laws, notes tellingly that no state which has enacted a right-to-carry law has repealed it. (In fairness, the CDC review also faulted studies of the effectiveness of these laws.) Those obsessed with the simplistic notion that guns equal crime will continue their crusade. But the popularity of right-to-carry laws more likely will continue to find a resonance.

Guns and violence are terrifically heated issues. Might it be that the slogans of those who oppose further regulation might have something when they say that guns do not kill people, people do, and that the best gun control is a firm grip on one's weapon? Until the shamans come up with definitive answers, of course.

Woody West is an associate editor for Insight magazine.