Scare Tactics on Guns
and Terror
by John
R. Lott, Jr.
Who could oppose
laws preventing terrorists from getting guns? Obviously no
one. But it would be nice if the law accomplished something
more than simply making it more difficult for Americans to own
guns.
Last week, the
Congressional Research Service issued an alarming report
claiming that international terrorists can easily exploit U.S.
gun laws. Senator Lautenberg had requested the report.
Unfortunately, the report simply lists possibilities that are
often impossible or only remotely plausible.
The report
points to loopholes in existing laws such as allowing
"official representatives of a foreign government ... possession of a firearm if necessary to their
official capacity." Similar loopholes are pointed out for
other "officials of foreign governments" who have
the permission of their governments, need it for their
official duties, and who have been residents in a state for at
least 90 days.
Of course, such
attacks using government agents is not what al Qaeda has been
doing nor is there any evidence that foreign government
officials are currently planning such attacks. But if a
foreign government plans on using diplomatic cover to engage
in terrorism, surely just banning such officials from buying
guns in the US won't stop them from getting access to
guns. What is the solution? Full body searches of foreign
diplomats entering the US? Searches of all diplomatic pouches?
The report
mentions threats from "semi-automatic assault
weapons" and 50-caliber "sniper rifles." Yet,
these banned semi-automatic assault weapons are not machine
guns. They function exactly the same as other semi-automatic
guns and fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. The banned
guns are the same as other non-banned semi-automatic guns,
firing the exact same bullets with the same rapidity. Forcing
gun makers to change the name of their gun or changing
cosmetic features, such as a bayonet mount, have nothing to do
with terrorism.
The assault
weapons ban has been in effect for almost a decade, but there
is still not one study showing that it reduced any type of
violent crime. There are also no studies to indicate that
similar state laws, such as New Jersey's 1990 law, have
also not reduced violent crime.
For years gun
control groups have tried to ban fifty-caliber rifles because
of fears that criminals could use them. Such bans have not
been passed – these guns were simply not suited for crime.
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, not
criminals. The bottom line is that no one in the US has ever
been killed with such a gun.
The link to
terrorism supposedly provides a new possible reason to ban
fifty-caliber rifles. But the decision to demonize these
particular guns and not say .475-caliber hunting rifles is
completely arbitrary. The difference in width of these bullets
is a trivial .025 inches. What's next? Banning .45-caliber
pistols? Indeed that is the whole point to gradually reducing
the types of guns that people can own.
The alarm raised
by the report about terrorists getting guns at gun shows is
just as misleading. As evidence of this threat the report
cites a Florida newspaper story claiming that "members of
Hezbollah were convicted of a variety of firearms violations
for attempting to smuggle firearms purchased at a Michigan gun
show out of the country." Unfortunately, none of the laws
being advocated by the Senator would actually have been
relevant here. A Lebanese citizen did try to illegally ship
two shotguns to Lebanon. However, the guns were purchased by
the Lebanese citizen's brother, a naturalized American
citizen – not a foreign terrorist. While shipping the two
shotguns broke export regulations, the supposed link with
Hezbollah was never made.
Given
that gun shows account for such a trivial share of guns
obtained by criminals, less than one percent, and that there
is not even anecdotal evidence that the laws would have
stopped terrorism, the proposals seem to be all costs and no
benefits. Empirical work that I have done indicates that the
types of regulations advocated by the report would reduce the
number of gun shows by between about 14 and 24 percent.
Fighting
terrorism is a noble cause, but the laws we pass must have
some real link to solving the problem. Absent that, many will
think that Senator Lautenberg is simply using terrorism as an
excuse to promote rules that he previously pushed. Making it
difficult for law-abiding Americans to own guns should not be
the only accomplishment of new laws.
May 31, 2003
John Lott [send
him mail], a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, is the author of the newly released The
Bias Against Guns, which examines the evidence on
multiple victim killings.
Copyright ©
2003 John Lott |
