Jewish World Review Jan. 4, 2002 / 20 Teves, 5762

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

More guns, more safety -- FOR the gun controllers, the year gone by was bleak.

As 2001 began, their lawsuits against gun manufacturers were being dismissed in one city after another. An attorney general nominee they bitterly opposed was confirmed. Soon after, he wrote to the National Rifle Association, "unequivocally" backing its view that the Second Amendment guarantees the freedom of individuals (not just state militias like the National Guard) to own guns. Six months later, the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals emphatically endorsed that interpretation, ruling "that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."

As if that wasn't depressing enough, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) said in October that dwindling contributions had forced it to lay off one-fifth of its staff -- its first layoffs in 27 years.

But to the anti-gun lobby, the worst news of all had to be the way in which tens of thousands of Americans reacted to the atrocities of Sept. 11: They went out and bought guns.

"Steep Rise in Gun Sales Reflects Post-Attack Fears," reported the Sunday New York Times in a Page 1, above-the-fold story on Dec. 16. Drawing on FBI statistics and surveys by gun owners organizations, it noted that "guns and ammunition sales across the country have risen sharply," with many of the weapons being acquired by "a steady stream of serious-minded first-time buyers." The number of background checks for gun purchases surged sharply after Sept. 11, peaking in October at 1,029,691 -- almost 22 percent higher than in the same month a year earlier. Meanwhile, "around the country, gun instruction classes have shown significant increases in enrollment."

An alarming trend? The Times certainly played up the views of those who think so:

"To many in and out of law enforcement, such a proliferation of deadly weapons is unsettling . . . . 'We are always concerned with the overall numbers of guns that are available and out on the street making things unmanageable for law enforcement,' said William B. Berger, the police chief of North Miami Beach. . . .

"Gun control advocates have voiced strong concern about the increased sales, citing statistics showing that guns, though purchased by the law abiding, sometimes end up later in criminals' hands. . . . The advocates also say that more guns in circulation, particularly in the hands of the untrained, increase the chances of violence in the home, suicide, or accidental shooting. . . .

"The vast number of weapons already loosed upon American streets often wind up in the hands of those with insufficient training, gun control advocates say. And they stay in circulation for years. 'We will see the ultimate consequences of that down the road when we see death and injuries that are associated with the proliferation of handguns,' said Tom Diaz [of] the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit gun control group in Washington."

Now, there is nothing wrong with quoting gun controllers in a story about rocketing gun sales. But it's a pity that the Times couldn't find room for even one quotation from an advocate of increased gun ownership or from a law enforcement official who believes that more guns leads to less crime. For the plain fact is, individuals who buy guns because it makes them feel safer generally have good reason to feel that way.

To those who support more and stricter gun control, nothing could be more self-evidently dangerous than the proliferation of guns in private hands. But crime and violence statistics point to a different conclusion.

Gun ownership in the United States is near its all-time high, yet gun violence is markedly lower than it was 10 years ago. A fluke? Not at all. When honest citizens are allowed to carry guns, criminals are less likely to attack. That is why violent crime tends to fall as gun ownership rises.

For a contrast, consider Great Britain, where handguns were banned in 1997 following the school massacre at Dunblane. Within two years, gun violence was up 40 percent. "A terrifying crime wave swept England," writes journalist Richard Poe in his recent book, The Seven Myths of Gun Control . "Stripped of the ability to defend themselves, Britons were left helpless against criminal attacks. And the criminals knew it."

In America, where 33 states now permit law-abiding residents to carry concealed handguns for their own protection, the inverse relationship between gun crime and gun ownership is clear. Yale Law School scholar John Lott analyzed 18 years of crime data from all 3,054 US counties, and discovered that nothing was more decisive in lowering violent crime rates than the passage of "shall-issue" or "right-to-carry" gun laws. In the biggest counties, those with populations of 200,000 or more, concealed-carry laws led to an average drop in murder rates of more than 13 percent.

When the National Association of Chiefs of Police asked police commanders last year whether they agreed or disagreed "that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime," 62 percent agreed. When asked whether law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense, 93 percent said yes. Cops can confirm from experience what millions of Americans know by intuition: Guns make us safer. Now if only someone would tell The New York Times.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe