Fill ?Er Up?
Are Laws Consumable Resources?
by dischord, distribution permitted and encouraged

You probably are aware that 1998 CDC gun data are out: Gun deaths continue to drop. In fact, from 1993 to 1998, gun deaths declined by more than a third in nearly all categories. For example, for 0-14 year olds, they spiked down 36% from 957 to 612, and for 0-19 year olds (“children”) they plummeted 34% from 5,751 to 3,792.

Imagine that any other product had experienced such dramatic decreases while seeing virtually zero change to its safety features and while popularity and use both rose. Let’s see, exposure has increased and the product remains the same, but injuries and deaths have plummeted. We’d laugh down claims about epidemics and calls for solutions.

But not with guns. As soon as CDC’s data came out, we heard HHS Secretary Donna Shalala saying, “But we all know how far we still have to go to protect our young people from gun deaths and injuries.” You’ll find variations of that sentiment from other leaders of the gun control ranks.

If by “more needed” they mean “more laws,” they would be making a faulty assumption that somehow laws are consumable resources ? that we’ve gone an impressive distance on a tank of gas, but, well, we need more gas to keep going. If we save this many lives with these laws, imagine how many more lives we’ll save with more laws.

However, we’ve obviously found powerful solutions with 36% drops ? be they the NRA instant background check (a.k.a. Brady Bill), the Eddie Eagle program, Project Exile, more gun carrying by private citizens or anti-violence counseling and advertising.

The gun controllers always say they are for “common sense” or “reasonable” solutions. Well, if ? as CDC and HHS claim ? guns are a health threat like HIV, imagine that we had in place the means to drop AIDS deaths by 36% over five years. What would entail more “common sense” and “reason” ? putting effort behind the proven cures or experimenting with potential cures?

Now imaging that the proposed AIDS “cures” were things like the current trigger lock proposals. Have you noticed that they don’t require anyone to use trigger locks, just that trigger locks be sold? This is like admitting that we cannot increase condom use by law, so instead we pass a law requiring lingerie stores to include gratis condoms with all sales.

Seen that way, the current proposals are about nothing but politicians carving out the appearance of progress ? “If we can’t pass a law that actually will increase trigger lock use, we’ll come up with a substitute and claim victory. Hush now, MMMs, we’ve passed a law involving trigger locks like you wanted.”

So Ms. Shalala (and friends), are you going to focus on increasing exposure to the existing cures or are you going to call for brand new, unproven proposals? Come on, show us that your goal really is saving lives rather than gun control. Continue with what’s working. Stop experimenting.

Lives are at stake, and your political agendas be damned.