Opinion Editorial | |
New Gun Controls Miss the MarkH. Sterling BurnettH. Sterling Burnett is an environmental policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education institute. |
In the emotional aftermath of Littleton, the U.S. Senate decided to "act now, think later," in its Juvenile Accountability Act. It's an opportunity for the House of Representatives to take bragging rights as the more thoughtful, reflective body in Congress.
The gun controls in the Senate's 648-page bill might be worth considering
if they were likely to prevent future school shootings. However, none of
the proposed rules would have prevented the massacre in Colorado or any
other school shooting, nor can they prevent future incidents. Indeed, some
of the provisions would reduce public safety by making guns less accessible
in times of need.
Take the gun lock provisions. Most handguns are already sold with trigger
or barrel locks. The legislation would make these mandatory for new sales.
But the federal government cannot require anyone to use such locks. And
since gun locks are easy to defeat, killers like Eric Harris and Dylan
Klebold would have known how to remove any locks. Further, Harris and
Klebold did most of their killing with shotguns, which are not covered by
the bill.
But will locks save the lives of young children? Very unlikely. Of 3,000
accidental deaths of children under age 5 each year, 40 are due to gun
accidents, certainly a real cost of gun ownership. Yet with 70 million to
80 million people owning an estimated 240 million guns, this is a
remarkable safety record. By comparison, 40 children under age 5 drown in
water buckets at home, 50 die by poisoning and 150 die from fires they
start with cigarette lighters.
Gun locks diminish the defensive value of guns. A lock on a loaded gun is
unsafe. And unlocking and loading a gun in a darkened bedroom in the
middle of the night is difficult - especially under criminal assault. Guns
are used about five times more often to stop crimes than to commit crimes.
Locks that result in more dead kids and adults rather than fewer are surely
not what the provisions intend.
And gun shows? Contrary to charges, they are not a loophole for illegal
gun sales. Since most vendors at gun shows are federally licensed dealers,
the same federal, state and local laws, including the national instant
background check, apply at gun shows. The background check was never
intended to apply to private individuals who sell a gun, whether such swaps
occur at a gun show or elsewhere.
Will the new gun show restrictions reduce criminal access to guns? No,
because gun shows are not a serious source for supplying criminals with
guns.
A mid-1980s survey of convicted felons in 12 state prisons found that fewer
than one percent obtained guns at gun shows.
A 1997 Justice Department study found only two percent of crime guns are
obtained from gun shows, including purchases by so-called straw men.
Criminals usually obtain guns through black market deals and theft. More
to the point, none of the recent school shootings involved guns illegally
purchased at gun shows. Juvenile offenders in several of the shootings
broke into locked cabinets or safes to get their weapons. And in
Littleton, Klebold and Harris obtained one gun through an illegal black
market purchase and got the other guns from a girlfriend. She bought the
guns at a gun show, but no background check would have disqualified her
purchase.
Nor would a proposed three-day waiting period have stopped any of the
school shootings. The Colorado tragedy was planned more than a year in
advance, and the guns in other school shootings were stolen, borrowed or
brought from home.
In some instances, a waiting period can give people time to cool off before
they resort to violence. However, this theoretical benefit must be weighed
against documented cases of stalked persons assaulted and sometimes killed
because a waiting period stopped them from promptly obtaining a gun for
self defense. The Brady Law's five-day waiting period had no detectable
effect on murders and robberies but increased rapes and aggravated
assaults, according to the only available study on the issue. Apparently,
the net effect of waiting periods is to make citizens more vulnerable to
crime.
In weighing new gun controls, let's hope that the people's representatives
adopt the Hippocratic oath, "First, do no harm."
The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research
institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies on public policy issues.
The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C.
Julie Hillrichs, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Sean Tuffnell, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Joan Kirby, Washington, DC 202-220-3082 Internet: http://www.ncpa.org Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |