Path: access.usask.ca!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.comment From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Gun laws through new insights Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 20:42:12 EST Message-ID: Lines: 91 \SE C;COMMENTARY \SS (WS) \HD Gun laws through new insights \BY Stephen Green President-elect Bill Clinton, aligning himself on the side of gun control, has pledged to limit access to firearms in order to make "the streets of our cities . . . safe again." Mr. Clinton's support for the Brady Bill and other measures seeking to restrict citizens' access to firearms is certain to put the emotional issue of gun control high on the public agenda when the new Congress convenes. The incoming president and others may be well-intentioned in arguing that tougher gun control statutes are essential to curb the epidemic of violent crime that has afflicted the nation's cities. But before advocates of gun control renew their legislative battle to undermine the Second Amendment, they ought to carefully consider a new report on the subject. Attacks on the constitutional right to bear arms are unlikely to have the salubrious effect that gun control proponents predict, according to the findings of W. W. Caruth III and Morgan O. Reynolds of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas. "Guns don't cause crimes - people do," a standard rejoinder against gun control, is rejected by some as simplistic sloganeering. But the experiences of other nations suggest there is much merit to the premise that crimes are not the consequence of possessing guns. Switzerland requires all healthy males between the ages of 20 and 50 to keep military automatic rifles and ammunition in their homes. Possession of guns for protection is widespread among Israelis. Yet, as the report notes, the incidence of violent crime is low in both nations. On the other side of the ledger is what has transpired in localities that have gun control laws. In virtually all, the regulations have had no effect on crime, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Caruth have discovered. The "overall effect on criminal violence was zero," according to their findings in their soon to be released report. It is revealing that there have been no significant differences in total robbery rates between cities where guns have been restricted and where they have not. In cities where firearms were not easily acquired, criminals did not stop committing robberies. They just turned to other weapons, the Dallas researchers found. The futility of gun control as a method of curbing lawlessness has been especially striking in Taiwan and Jamaica, where violent crime escalated after handguns were banned. It may be argued that Taiwan and Jamaica are too different from the United States for valid comparisons. But a similar phenomenon occurred in Canada. Not only did the murder rate fail to fall after Canada passed gun control in 1977, armed robberies and burglaries increased. Contrary to the arguments of gun control supporters, possession of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding can serve as a deterrent to crimes. During the Los Angeles riots earlier this year, there were dramatic scenes broadcast on television of Korean merchants defending their stores by brandishing firearms to frighten away would-be looters. Arguably, gun control laws may benefit criminals more than the law-abiding. Aside from the police, criminals would be the only ones left with guns. A fundamental flaw in the argument for gun control is contained in the campaign on behalf of the Brady Bill - the proposal to impose a national waiting period for firearm purchases. It is true that John Hinckley purchased the gun used to wound former President Reagan and to disable his press secretary, James Brady, in Texas where there is no waiting period. But Hinckley could just as easily have obtained the gun in any state with a waiting period. At the time, he had no criminal record and no public record of mental problems. After he acquired the gun, five months elapsed before he tried to assassinate Mr. Reagan. While gun control laws may make their supporters feel good about their efforts to combat crime, the facts do not justify the assault on the Second Amendment. The nation will be better off and citizens will be safer if the righteous fervor of gun control advocates is directed toward more effective crime fighting endeavors. Stephen Green, managing editor of the Copley News Service Washington bureau, is a nationally syndicated columnist. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM