---------------------
Fact-Based Gun Laws
by Mischa Gelman
(published 8/28/00)

  Now that the Million Mom March is several months behind us, perhaps it
is time to take an honest, statistical look at gun control. After all, the
march only increased the usual high level of emotion surrounding the
topic, a policy realm where logic takes a back seat to rhetoric and
propoganda from both sides. Gun-control proponents rely on heart-rendering
stories of victims of gun violence, individuals who deserve our sympathy.
Meanwhile, they characterize their opponents as "gun nuts" and "right-wing
extremists" and (according to a New York Times description) "doomsday
cults" and "Montana freemen." Gun rights advocates are no better, as they
readily counter with claims of "gun-grabbers" and "muddled moms" and
comparisons to the Nazi gun controls of the 30s, which only increases the
public perception of them as, well, gun nuts.
  Amidst such terminology, we lose focus of the actual facts. The NRA and
their allies overlook the fact that, yes, guns do kill people, and far too
often. Something should be done to work to decrease gun violence. Meanwhile, 
Handgun Control Inc. and their allies overlook the research behind
gun-control legislation - a record which speaks loudly and clearly that
their approach is wrong-headed.
  Our most recent examples come from Australia - gun control there has
been in place only over a year. In the first twelve months of the
legislation, after hundreds of thousands of personal firearms were
confiscated, homicides increased 3.2%, assaults increased 8.5% and armed
robberies went up a whopping 44%. Before the gun control was passed, armed
robberies had been on a 25-year decrease. In the United States, gun
ownership increased throughout the 90s (up to 40% nowadays, whereas the
media would have you believe only fringe lunatics own guns) yet crime and
violent crime fell for most of the decade. If gun ownership led to
violence, the reverse would be the situation.
  Professor John Lott Jr. (after reviewing the data for 20 years from
across the nation) found that safe-storage laws did not reduce the number
of suicides or accidental gun deaths; on the other hand, the fifteen
states to implement such laws had more burglaries, 300 more murders per
year and 3,800 more rapes per year. Where are the feminist groups who
should be opposing such rape-increasing laws?
  Not only do gun-control laws increase the level of violence, but
concealed-carry laws decrease crime rates. If we should be passing new
legislation, it should be to increase citizens' access to guns, not
decrease it. We need laws that will deter criminals by allowing Americans
to defend themselves more easily.
  It is not that gun laws are always a bad idea - but we should do what
most Americans want in regards to such laws. They want us to enforce
existing laws. Recent polls have found that 29% want new gun laws whereas
68% want stronger enforcement of the laws already on the books. Gun
control groups and gun rights groups both agree this is a wise idea as
well (though gun rights groups fought these laws when they were initially
being proposed). Not only that, but they WORK! In Richmond, Virginia, the
murder rate quickly fell once the law enforcement officials began backing
the existing rules that penalize gun-toting criminals.
  Is it any wonder that scholars have altered their views when studying
the issue? Many have began studying the issue favoring gun-control
laws...but after looking at the research concluded that no new laws should
be passed if we're concerned about citizen safety. One doesn't hear of the
reverse scenario ever taking place. I know my views certainly changed once
I began looking at the facts. Those facts speak loud and clear - while gun
ownership causes some violence and crime, the net effect is that the level
of violence and crime decreases due to the deterrent effect of gun
ownership.
  Not only is it a logical, fact-based approach, but it is the legal way
to proceed, at least in Pennsylvania. While the second amendment does have
open room for reinterpretation (it fairly clearly specifies that gun
rights exist only because a militia is needed, and many would argue there
is no need for a militia in this day and age), our state constitution is
blunt and to the point - "The right of the citizens to bear arms in
defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." 
  The Democrats, by backing more and more gun control laws, continue to
abandon their roots as the party of the people. With their increasing
social liberalism and economic conservatism, they abandon their populist
history. They've already lost the House and the Senate under this "New
Democrat" ideology - will they keep abandoning their base till they lose
the presidency in addition to their soul?

  Mischa Gelman wonders why a bright guy like Ralph Nader is on the wrong
side of the issue.