GUNS - Fewer injuries. . . Good news, bad logic

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News : One Thread

Natl Review Fewer Gun Injuries…
Good news, bad logic.

By Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, and author of Pistol Whipped: Baseless Lawsuits, Foolish Laws May 9, 2001, available at www.cato.org

May 11, 2001 9:45 a.m.

Gun-related deaths in the United States, down 26 percent from 1993 to 1998, are now at their lowest level since 1966, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Anti-gun advocates are quick to credit tougher gun controls. The National Rifle Association touts safety courses. More likely, the good news about declining gun injuries can be traced to better law enforcement, a booming economy, the waning crack trade, and an aging population.

Tougher gun controls don't explain the parallel drop in non-gun-related homicides. And NRA safety courses don't explain comparable decreases in gun assaults as well as accidents. That doesn't mean safety courses are a bad idea. They probably cost little to administer, and could be helpful in curbing accidents — especially those involving younger gun users.

On the other hand, more rigorous gun controls are not only ineffective, but also counter-productive. Many of the recommended regulations would make matters worse by stripping law-abiding citizens of their chief means of self-defense. Historically, more gun laws have gone hand-in-hand with an explosion of violent crime. Only during the past decade have we seen dramatic reductions in violence, as reflected in the CDC report. Yet according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, the number of circulating guns in the United States grew by 10 percent during the mid-1990s.

A day after the CDC report was released, the Associated Press published its analysis of the latest statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Worldwide production of handguns fell 52 percent from a peak in 1993 to roughly 1.5 million guns in 1999. Predictably, gun-control crusaders pointed to the 1993 Brady Act, which requires a background check for all purchases from licensed gun dealers. No doubt it's more difficult to buy a gun from a licensed dealer nowadays. It's also more costly for licensed dealers to operate. That's why their number has plummeted from a peak of 284,000 in 1992 to 104,000 today.

To the extent that the Brady Act has frustrated gun sales by licensed dealers, the Act has worsened the problem of gun violence. Criminals who are not deterred by laws against armed robbery, rape, and murder will hardly be deterred by laws requiring background checks. Instead, sales get re-routed to unlicensed dealers and, if those sales are somehow proscribed, to the black market. Meanwhile, smaller gun makers are going out of business; two California dealers have declared bankruptcy; Colt announced a layoff of 300 workers, then withdrew from the consumer handgun business, focusing instead on military weapons and collectibles.

Higher dealer costs are showing up in higher prices. Top-quality handguns are now priced in the $350 to $550 range, with fewer guns available for less than $100. Not surprisingly, higher prices have less impact on criminal demand than on the demand from price-sensitive, inner-city citizens. Peaceable, would-be gun owners cannot buy affordable handguns, which might otherwise have been used to ward off assailants. Even Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, concedes that "most people who buy handguns do so for self-defense." It is perverse and immoral to keep firearms away from prospective victims of violence.

Fortunately, citizens who are put off by intrusive background checks have a couple of options. First, rather than upgrade to a newer model, they can rely on a weapon already owned or one purchased from a private party. Older guns function quite well notwithstanding their age. That explains why the number of firearms in circulation continues to grow even though fewer guns are being manufactured each year. Second, potential victims of criminal predators can arm themselves with rifles or shotguns, neither of which is subject to background checks. That may account for the increasing production of those weapons — 2.8 million in 1999, up eight percent from 1993 — despite a declining production of handguns.

For those residents of high-risk areas who live in fear but are reluctant to own a gun, the CDC report of substantial reductions in violent crime is most gratifying. Indeed, the lower level of violence is the most likely reason for the drop in gun production. As criminal activity diminishes, the demand for weapons of self-defense shrinks in tandem. The anti-gun lobby has that correlation exactly backwards. It's not that guns in the hands of more Americans cause crime. Quite the contrary, it's crime that causes more Americans to need guns.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ