Handgun Control Inc. at it again By Paul Kelly
Handgun Control Inc. at it again
By Paul Kelly
Mar. 31 – Last Sunday, this paper ran an editorial that endorsed
trigger-lock laws and passed on some Handgun Control Inc.
propaganda. It
included the claim that 30,000 people are killed by guns in the
United
States each year, a fact necessitating more gun control.
The problem with that argument is that number is made up of mostly
suicides.
Now I know there’s just nothing like a few gun-control laws to
cheer
everybody right up and lower the suicide rate. But unless a
significant
number of Americans really are committing suicide because they’re
despondent
over the availability of firearms, it’s hard to imagine an honest
reason for
the numbers to be padded that way.
But just in case Handgun Control Inc. has stumbled onto something,
let’s
take a look.
The glorious gun-controlled Utopia of Japan has a suicide rate
higher than
the combined suicide and homicide rates of the United States. In
fact, the
suicide rate in Japan is double the total U.S. death rate from
firearms of
all kinds for all reasons, including homicide, suicide, accidental
shootings
and police shootings.
(Apparently Utopia’s got some termites in the support columns.)
Either gun control is far more depressing than even the NRA
thought, or
there is no cause-and-effect relationship whatsoever between gun
laws and
suicide.
How often do you have to catch Handgun Control Inc. lying until it
dawns on
you that they’re not reliable or honorable? (If you voted for Bill
Clinton,
ignore that question.)
But wouldn’t safety locks still be a good idea even if the folks
pushing
them aren’t honest? Well, maybe.
A safety device will be effective if it’s well designed, if it’s
used, and
if it doesn’t create a false sense of security leading to greater
carelessness.
In many cases, trigger locks increase the likelihood of an
accidental
discharge if the gun is dropped. There are other ways to secure a
gun that
are more effective, cheaper, and don’t interfere as much with the
gun’s
usefulness in an emergency. In other words, anyone conscientious
enough to
use a trigger lock doesn’t need it, and anyone who isn’t wouldn’t
use it.
That probably explains why almost no one buys them voluntarily.
After 30 years in the construction industry, I can guarantee you
that any
safety device that interferes with the usefulness of a tool will
be removed.
If your job is cutting boards, it makes no sense to show up with a
saw that
doesn’t cut, no matter how safe it is.
That’s true of guns as well. If I owned a liquor store that had
been robbed
several times, there’d be a gun under the counter; having a
trigger lock on
that gun would be dumber than expecting the police to show up in
the nick of
time.
Twelve states have trigger-lock laws, and in 10 years the
accidental
shooting deaths of school age children in those states has dropped
24
percent. During the same time, however, the rate dropped 32
percent in the
other states. After 10 years, on average, the states without such
laws are
significantly safer than the ones with the laws. Why not find out
what’s
actually working, even if it doesn’t (horror of horrors) involve
bigger and
more intrusive government? (I understand that big, intrusive
government is a
wonderful thing in its own right. But sometimes you just have to
bite the
bullet, cut some taxes, fire a few bureaucrats, and actually solve
some
problems. We can always go back to expanding the government after
we get
something done.)
Oh, and for those of you who just love that little analogy about
aspirin
bottles: it’s a really bad example.
Accidental poisonings by aspirin and aspirin substitutes have
increased by
about 3,000 a year nationwide since the government mandated those
safety
caps. But I guess if you’re looking for proof that the government
can make
our personal decisions for us better than we can, a really bad
example is
probably as good as it gets.
Paul Kelly is a Boulder carpenter and former vicechair of the
Boulder County
Democratic Party.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/voices0331.htm
By Paul Kelly
Mar. 31 – Last Sunday, this paper ran an editorial that endorsed
trigger-lock laws and passed on some Handgun Control Inc.
propaganda. It
included the claim that 30,000 people are killed by guns in the
United
States each year, a fact necessitating more gun control.
The problem with that argument is that number is made up of mostly
suicides.
Now I know there’s just nothing like a few gun-control laws to
cheer
everybody right up and lower the suicide rate. But unless a
significant
number of Americans really are committing suicide because they’re
despondent
over the availability of firearms, it’s hard to imagine an honest
reason for
the numbers to be padded that way.
But just in case Handgun Control Inc. has stumbled onto something,
let’s
take a look.
The glorious gun-controlled Utopia of Japan has a suicide rate
higher than
the combined suicide and homicide rates of the United States. In
fact, the
suicide rate in Japan is double the total U.S. death rate from
firearms of
all kinds for all reasons, including homicide, suicide, accidental
shootings
and police shootings.
(Apparently Utopia’s got some termites in the support columns.)
Either gun control is far more depressing than even the NRA
thought, or
there is no cause-and-effect relationship whatsoever between gun
laws and
suicide.
How often do you have to catch Handgun Control Inc. lying until it
dawns on
you that they’re not reliable or honorable? (If you voted for Bill
Clinton,
ignore that question.)
But wouldn’t safety locks still be a good idea even if the folks
pushing
them aren’t honest? Well, maybe.
A safety device will be effective if it’s well designed, if it’s
used, and
if it doesn’t create a false sense of security leading to greater
carelessness.
In many cases, trigger locks increase the likelihood of an
accidental
discharge if the gun is dropped. There are other ways to secure a
gun that
are more effective, cheaper, and don’t interfere as much with the
gun’s
usefulness in an emergency. In other words, anyone conscientious
enough to
use a trigger lock doesn’t need it, and anyone who isn’t wouldn’t
use it.
That probably explains why almost no one buys them voluntarily.
After 30 years in the construction industry, I can guarantee you
that any
safety device that interferes with the usefulness of a tool will
be removed.
If your job is cutting boards, it makes no sense to show up with a
saw that
doesn’t cut, no matter how safe it is.
That’s true of guns as well. If I owned a liquor store that had
been robbed
several times, there’d be a gun under the counter; having a
trigger lock on
that gun would be dumber than expecting the police to show up in
the nick of
time.
Twelve states have trigger-lock laws, and in 10 years the
accidental
shooting deaths of school age children in those states has dropped
24
percent. During the same time, however, the rate dropped 32
percent in the
other states. After 10 years, on average, the states without such
laws are
significantly safer than the ones with the laws. Why not find out
what’s
actually working, even if it doesn’t (horror of horrors) involve
bigger and
more intrusive government? (I understand that big, intrusive
government is a
wonderful thing in its own right. But sometimes you just have to
bite the
bullet, cut some taxes, fire a few bureaucrats, and actually solve
some
problems. We can always go back to expanding the government after
we get
something done.)
Oh, and for those of you who just love that little analogy about
aspirin
bottles: it’s a really bad example.
Accidental poisonings by aspirin and aspirin substitutes have
increased by
about 3,000 a year nationwide since the government mandated those
safety
caps. But I guess if you’re looking for proof that the government
can make
our personal decisions for us better than we can, a really bad
example is
probably as good as it gets.
Paul Kelly is a Boulder carpenter and former vicechair of the
Boulder County
Democratic Party.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/voices0331.htm
