May 12, 2000 by David Lampo
David Lampo is the publications director at the Cato Institute. The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a "Million Mom March" to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother's Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it's easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case. Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge. 1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents. False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence. 2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals. False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks. 3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws. False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal. 4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't. True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. 5. Waiting periods lower crime rates. False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides." 6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works. False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Heald Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 5:38 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) In that case please tell me how the following right allows abortion, jesus in piss as art or expression, and allows the federal and state government to BAN the free exercise of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." Or how the following amendment will allow a police officer to seize and use against you items in your house, without a warrant, or that are not mentioned specifically in a warrant, or allow a court to force you to take a drug test against your will. Or collect DNA or fingerprint evidence prior to conviction.(not a private company, I fully understand that can and is usually a condition of employment, and fully within the employers rights) : "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Or how considering the next amendment the police, both federal and state, can come into your home and seize your property, keep it and sell it, if if your found not guilty of the crime. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Or how we can have "Secret" trials of US Citizens considering the following: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." Sixth Amendment I can go on and on. That being said I should say that I love this country, I understand the mistakes we are making. As a group the citizens of this country need to stand and be heard. There are fewer and fewer people who go out and vote in each election. Soon it will be only the people who have a direct interest in the out come of the election that take part. The two party system we have adopted is causing greater and ever more widening gaps in our beliefs. Just hope we do something about it. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:19 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) State right. based on the first clause of the statement. larry At 12:23 PM 12/6/02 -0500, you wrote: >OK folks. Snap poll: > >"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, >the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - >The second amendment to the constitution of the United States > >1. This proclaims an individual right. > >2. This proclaims a state right. > >My rant will follow. > >Tim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:15 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban > > >Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban > >Thu Dec 5,10:36 PM ETAdd U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo! > >By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer > >SAN FRANCISCO(AP) - A federal appeals court unanimously upheld >California's ban on assault weapons Thursday, saying >individuals had no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. > >"The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not >adopted in order to afford rights to >individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession," Judge >Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the 9th U.S. Circuit >Court of Appeals decision. > >Weapons owners challenged amendments to a 1989 law that originally >outlawed 75 high-powered weapons with rapid-fire >capabilities. The Legislature passed the nation's first law banning such >weapons after a gunman fired a semiautomatic >weapon into a Stockton school yard, killing five children and injuring 30. > >Following California's lead, several states and the federal government >passed similar or even stricter bans. >In 1999, California lawmakers amended the law to ban assault weapons based >on a host of features instead of specific >makes and models - a move that outlawed hundreds of so-called copycat >weapons not clearly defined in the initial law. > >"While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports >shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to >protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military >style weapons to be on the streets in our >state," said Bill Lockyer, >California's attorney general. > >The National Rifle Association said it was disappointed with the ruling. > >"From an organizational standpoint, for 131 years we've been standing >steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law >abiding Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an >individual right and will continue to do so," >said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. > >Arulanandam said it was too early to tell what the effects of the decision >would be. > >Attorneys for the suing gun owners did not immediately return phone calls >Thursday. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
