This is from the Future of Freedom Foundation. I highly recommend subscribing
to their excellent Libertarian newsletter <http://www.fff.org >

TJ Johnston
———————————————————————
GUN CONTROL: WHERE’S THE LOGIC?
by Sheldon Richman
June 20, 2000

One of the old Bolsheviks is reputed to have said that the best way to
destroy a country is to debase its currency. A central bank is well-suited
to that mission. But there’s another effective way: degrade people’s
ability to construct or follow a logical argument. Government schools are
particularly well-suited for that mission.

Has that ability been degraded here? How else can we account for the
arguments people make for gun control? I’m not talking about Rosie
O’Donnell now; she’s too easy. Let’s turn to the editorial board of the New
York Times. On May 31 the Times published an editorial on the latest
dramatic acts of gun violence: the killing of a teacher by a 13-year-old boy
in Florida and the killing of five people at a Wendy’s restaurant in New
York City.

Both were despicable crimes — no argument there. The Times thinks those
horrendous events confirm the need for new laws against firearms. But the
editorial not only fails to make that case; it actually refutes itself.

The boy killed his teacher with a .25 caliber semi-automatic handgun that he
took from an unlocked bureau drawer in the home of his grandfather. Before
anyone says that Florida needs a new law, note that the Times acknowledges
that “Florida, like 17 other states, has a child access prevention law on
the books that requires gun owners to lock up their weapons.”

The Times is undaunted by that inconvenient fact: “But even where child
access laws exist, their effectiveness is often undermined by the absence of
any requirement that would-be gun owners be familiar with the rules for safe
storage of weapons. That is one of the virtues of moving to a national gun
licensing system in which such a requirement could be imposed.”

So an argument offered for federal gun licensing is that the license can be
conditioned on applicants’ taking a course on safe storage. Apparently,
adults, most of whom have gone through the government’s schools, can’t
figure out on their own how to safely store weapons. But don’t they use
locks to secure other things — without being taught by the government? And
how can we be sure they will pay attention during the course or follow the
advice later? That argument for licensing is tissue-thin.

The Times senses this, so it supplements the argument: “The further tragedy
is that this killing could probably have been prevented had all handguns
been required to have safety locks that prevented their firing except by an
authorized user.” Is someone who leaves a gun and ammunition in an unlocked
drawer accessible to a child likely to use a trigger lock? Notice that the
Times smuggles in a non sequitur. A trigger lock does not ensure that a gun
cannot be fired by an unauthorized person. Anyone who finds the key to the
lock can fire the gun. Someone who leaves a gun in an unlocked drawer might
well leave a trigger-lock key to be found. No law can prevent irresponsible
adults from leaving guns where children can find them. And yet, gun
accidents with children have been falling for years.

The Times’s take on the Wendy’s murders is also flawed. The editorial
scoffs at calls for the death penalty for the killers. Why? Because the
death penalty is an unproven deterrent! And gun laws are a proven
deterrent? Instead, the Times wants a “tightening [of] the nation’s gun
laws to deny violent thugs inappropriate access.” The editorial points out
that the two suspects have criminal records and would not have passed
background checks had they tried to buy guns from a dealer.
So the suspects had no guns, right? Well, no. As the Times notes, “One of
the suspects told police that they had no trouble buying a .380-caliber
semi-automatic on the street in Jamaica, Queens.” The editorial just throws
that fact out as though it has no implications for its argument for new gun
laws. As my 12-year-old son, Ben, would say, “Duh!”

“These latest high-profile gun tragedies argue for passing that legislation
[pending in Congress] and moving on to stronger measures,” concludes the
Times. Right. And while they’re passing laws against criminals’ possessing
guns, why don’t they also pass one against earthquakes, hurricanes, and
tornadoes?

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in
Fairfax, Va. (www.fff.org), and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine. >>