OUTSIDE THE BOX
America Arms – Gun rights gain in the wake of Sept. 11.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, December 5, 2001 12:01 a.m.

Liberal Delaware (Gore by 13.06%) awoke the other morning to the news that
gun sales are up 32% since Sept. 11, range use is up 25%, and advanced gun
classes are booked through February. The Diamond State is not alone. The
FBI reports that in the month after the attacks, requests for gun-related
background checks through its National Check System rose 20%.
Concealed-weapons applications tripled in Texas, and, according to the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, filings for gun-purchase background
checks increased 50% in the weeks following Sept. 11. Florida news articles
report “a dramatic increase in gun and ammunition purchases, particularly
among women, senior citizens and first-time gun owners.” In other words,
the
people who feel the most vulnerable are taking action to protect
themselves.
The events of September set off a rush for protection, but in truth these
were but the next steps in a long American march towards increased personal
safety. In the mid-1980s nine states had “right to carry” laws. Now the
number is 33. The attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life and the wounding of James
Brady certainly played a role in so many states permitting licensed
individuals without criminal records or significant mental illness to carry
concealed weapons.
In Michigan, 30,000 people immediately took advantage of the right-to-carry
law when it went into effect this July 1. Michigan officials expect the
total
number of permits to rise to more than 125,000 from 50,000, according to
the
Chicago Tribune. According to Gallup and Reason Online, 39% of
Americans–47%
of men and 27% of women–have guns in their homes. In 1996, 76 million
adults
owned at least one gun and the number is rising.
Meanwhile the government is rethinking the liberal antigun consensus that
began to take root in the 1970s. “It is settled [law] that there is no
personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or use a
gun,” stated a 1973 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel publication.
But this September Attorney General John Ashcroft said that “the Second
Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms,” and the
Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals so held in an October decision. Seems obvious,
considering the text of the Second Amendment: “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.”
Television media continue to advocate stricter gun controls–the Media
Research Center evaluated 635 TV news reports from July 1, 1997, to June
30,
1999, and found 357 stories supporting stricter controls, 260 neutral and
only 36 opposing controls. But the rest of the country seems to prefer
citizen safety to gun limitations.
What is driving these changes in law? The thought that there are terrorists
among us who may be armed and dangerous is one factor, made very real by
Sept. 11 and subsequent threat alerts. The antigun lobby’s goal of
eliminating the private ownership of guns–unilateral disarmament in the
face
of armed criminals–now seems an even more ill-conceived policy, likely to
turn citizens into victims before it turns terrorists into law-abiding
citizens.
Another factor was the rise in violent crime in American cities in the
1970s
and ’80s and the press coverage it received. When people saw that the
existing structures of government were unable to protect citizens against
violence, they thought it prudent to protect themselves. Florida State
University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that Americans use guns 2.5
million times a year to protect themselves and their property. .
The use of guns for self-defense is largely deterrent; John Lott of the
American Enterprise Institute observes that “in 98 percent of all cases,
simply brandishing a gun is sufficient to stop a crime.” Don’t believe it?
He
ran a quick check last March and turned up 20 successful defensive gun use
stories reported in local media in a single week.
Further, Mr. Lott and David Mustard’s 1997 study, “Crime, Deterrence, and
Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns” details the positive impact
concealed-carry laws have on crime rates: “If those states without
right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county-
and
state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been
avoided yearly. Similarly we predict that rapes would have declined by over
4,000, robberies by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000.”
Most Americans’ attitude toward guns lies somewhere between the gun-rights
and antigun extremes. A 1999 Gallup poll found that Americans favored
waiting
periods for gun purchases (the Brady bill) by 89% to 10%, but opposed
banning
the “possession of handguns, except by police and other authorized persons”
by 62% to 36%.
No doubt those views have shifted along with other beliefs as a result of
the
terrorist attacks. Most important, though, may be a new appreciation of the
Second Amendment’s guarantee of the fundamental, individual right to
protect
yourself against violence through the possession of a weapon.
That is a good thing, because America will be safer, people will be safer,
and the threat of violence against us will diminish.
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the
Dallas-based National Center for Policy