cw052601_Gun banners want NRA out of San Fran

With this exhortation for justice, Bill Barnes of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Burke Strunsky of Ban Handgun Violence promote their thesis that banning guns in San Francisco will reduce homicide. We will examine some of their supporting arguments to determine the veracity of their claim. (1)

Gun Ban Justice Means Misinterpreting Supreme Court Decisions

“Since 1939, the Supreme Court has found that the Second Amendment doesn't give an individual a Constitutional right to own a gun.” – SF Bay Guardian editorial

They refer to U.S. v. Miller, where two men were apprehended with a type of firearm restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. (2) They appealed their indictment by claiming the Firearms Act “offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment” against government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The United States Supreme Court ruling focused only upon the gun’s “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”

Referencing Constitutional law, the justices discussed the term militia, concluding:

“With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.”

The Court also referred to the “debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators,” concluding:

“These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Since the military was not using short-barreled shotguns at the time, the court decided “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

The justices agreed with the Founders that the militia is the people, and that the government cannot abridge the right of the people to be armed, as that would render the militia ineffective. A reasonable deduction of the Miller decision is that the justices believed the Second Amendment may not enshrine a broad right to own non-military firearms.

Gun Ban Justice is Not Dependent Upon Understanding Statistical Reality

“More than 20 years ago, the District of Columbia enacted a similar handgun ban and is on its way to a 20-year low of homicides.” – SF Bay Guardian editorial

The claim is based upon preliminary 2004 crime data, verified by a Washington Post article. (3)

In the last 10 years, the D.C. murder rate has dropped 37%, partially reversing a severe longer-term trend. Since the gun ban was enacted in 1976, the D.C. murder rate is up 65%, while the national rate dropped 35%.

Violent crime statistics from 1964 to 2003 show that while D.C. has consistently been more violent than the national average, it has become more deadly over time. The table below shows that while the overall violent crime rate has been relatively steady throughout the entire time period, D.C. homicide rates have been accelerating, now over eight times the national average. (4)

13-Year Increments	DC/US Violent Crime Ratio	DC/US Homicide Ratio
1964-1976 (pre-ban)	4.4	3.7
1977-1990 (post-ban)	3.1	4.3
1991-2003 (post-ban)	3.5	8.1

The 2004 numbers alone do not represent a significant downward trend; relying on one year’s data for making public policy decisions is perilous at best. The Post article agrees:

“Despite last year's reduction, the District remains one of the most deadly cities in the country.”

Gun Ban Justice Favors Biased Research

“The New England Journal of Medicine found that a handgun in the home makes it 43 times more likely that a friend, family member, or acquaintance will be killed than an intruder.” –– SF Bay Guardian editorial

This quote references a 1986 study which compared two cities with differing levels of gun ownership and firearm death rates. (5)

In a recent radio interview, when Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign was asked to consider that the firearm-related death rate for minors in Texas, a CCW state, was less than California’s, a leader in state gun control laws, he called it a “statistical aberration.” (6) Therefore, according to Brady criteria, the paper quoted here, which compares only two metropolitan populations, is also a statistical aberration. Yet gun banners tout this paper as proof that handgun ownership increases homicide rates.

A Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that from 1993 through 2001, firearm violence declined 63%. (7) A Centers for Disease Control report found the firearm-related death rate declined 29% between 1990 and 2001. (8)

Over 31 million handguns were sold between 1986 and 1999. (9) If handgun owners were truly 43 times more likely to be involved in homicide, shouldn’t rates have increased, rather than declining 34% since 1986? (10)

This highlights the flaw of selecting two cities and one year’s data to base a statistical analysis upon, rather than using broader populations over a longer time frame.

What might cause the murder rate to decline?

Let’s look at two cities with long-standing, strict civilian disarmament which experienced significant drops in homicide rates in recent years.

What has changed in Washington, D.C. that might cause dropping homicide rate mentioned in the Washington Post article?

“D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said police got results by making more arrests and seizing more guns, rigorously analyzing crime trends and joining other city agencies in focusing on 14 ‘hot spots.’”

“Aggressively attacking crime has had an impact on the streets.” – Chief Ramsey

“Citywide, serious crime is expected to fall for the 13th straight year in 2004. The homicide tally so far this year – 547 – is down 4.4 percent from last year…”

“Officials with the New York Police Department credit their success to a series of crime-fighting initiatives.” (11)

Due to gun control laws, there were few if any legal guns to round up in order to impact crime according to gun control dogma. Instead, the police began targeting criminals using more sophisticated methods, and murder rates declined significantly.

Conclusion

Since targeting criminals reduces homicide, it would be more just to enforce criminal law, instead of diverting police resources to tracking down and confiscating firearms from people who have no criminal intent.

How can the op/ed authors claim to represent justice when they hold innocent citizens guilty for the actions of criminals? When they wish to enact laws that have been proven to be dangerous to future generations of innocents?

The Brady Campaign wants the NRA, an organization comprised of four million American citizens, to leave San Francisco. Is this representative of democratic justice that fair-minded San Franciscans support, or is this more representative of tyranny?

Footnotes

(4) The three following data sources were used in the comparative discussion:

District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960-2000, The Disaster Center.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

(5) Arthur L. Kellerman, Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60 1986.

(7) Weapon Use and Violent Crime, Craig Perkins, National Crime Victimization Survey 1993-2001, page 1, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2003.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf