: Scare Tactics on Guns and Terror

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage
where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens
may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” [Ayn Rand, The Nature of
Government]

–
OPERATION: Liberate America First….
Repeal Homeland (in)Security and (non)Patriot Acts.
——————-

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/lott2.html

Scare Tactics on Guns and Terror
by John R. Lott, Jr.

Who could oppose laws preventing terrorists from
getting guns? Obviously no one. But it would be nice
if the law accomplished something more than simply
making it more difficult for Americans to own guns.

Last week, the Congressional Research Service issued
an alarming report claiming that international
terrorists can easily exploit U.S. gun laws. Senator
Lautenberg had requested the report. Unfortunately,
the report simply lists possibilities that are often
impossible or only remotely plausible.

The report points to loopholes in existing laws such
as allowing “official representatives of a foreign
government . possession of a firearm if necessary to
their official capacity.” Similar loopholes are
pointed out for other “officials of foreign
governments” who have the permission of their
governments, need it for their official duties, and
who have been residents in a state for at least 90
days.

Of course, such attacks using government agents is not
what al Qaeda has been doing nor is there any evidence
that foreign government officials are currently
planning such attacks. But if a foreign government
plans on using diplomatic cover to engage in
terrorism, surely just banning such officials from
buying guns in the US won’t stop them from getting
access to guns. What is the solution? Full body
searches of foreign diplomats entering the US?
Searches of all diplomatic pouches?

The report mentions threats from “semi-automatic
assault weapons” and 50-caliber “sniper rifles.” Yet,
these banned semi-automatic assault weapons are not
machine guns. They function exactly the same as other
semi-automatic guns and fire one bullet per pull of
the trigger. The banned guns are the same as other
non-banned semi-automatic guns, firing the exact same
bullets with the same rapidity. Forcing gun makers to
change the name of their gun or changing cosmetic
features, such as a bayonet mount, have nothing to do
with terrorism.

The assault weapons ban has been in effect for almost
a decade, but there is still not one study showing
that it reduced any type of violent crime. There are
also no studies to indicate that similar state laws,
such as New Jersey’s 1990 law, have also not reduced
violent crime.

For years gun control groups have tried to ban
fifty-caliber rifles because of fears that criminals
could use them. Such bans have not been passed – these
guns were simply not suited for crime. Fifty-caliber
rifles are big, heavy guns, weighing at least 30
pounds and using a 29-inch barrel. They are also
relatively expensive. Models that hold one bullet at a
time run nearly $3,000. Semi-automatic versions cost
around $7,000. They are purchased by wealthy target
shooters and big-game hunters, not criminals. The
bottom line is that no one in the US has ever been
killed with such a gun.

The link to terrorism supposedly provides a new
possible reason to ban fifty-caliber rifles. But the
decision to demonize these particular guns and not say
.475-caliber hunting rifles is completely arbitrary.
The difference in width of these bullets is a trivial
.025 inches. What’s next? Banning .45-caliber pistols?
Indeed that is the whole point to gradually reducing
the types of guns that people can own.

The alarm raised by the report about terrorists
getting guns at gun shows is just as misleading. As
evidence of this threat the report cites a Florida
newspaper story claiming that “members of Hezbollah
were convicted of a variety of firearms violations for
attempting to smuggle firearms purchased at a Michigan
gun show out of the country.” Unfortunately, none of
the laws being advocated by the Senator would actually
have been relevant here. A Lebanese citizen did try to
illegally ship two shotguns to Lebanon. However, the
guns were purchased by the Lebanese citizen’s brother,
a naturalized American citizen – not a foreign
terrorist. While shipping the two shotguns broke
export regulations, the supposed link with Hezbollah
was never made.

Given that gun shows account for such a trivial share
of guns obtained by criminals, less than one percent,
and that there is not even anecdotal evidence that the
laws would have stopped terrorism, the proposals seem
to be all costs and no benefits. Empirical work that I
have done indicates that the types of regulations
advocated by the report would reduce the number of gun
shows by between about 14 and 24 percent.

Fighting terrorism is a noble cause, but the laws we
pass must have some real link to solving the problem.
Absent that, many will think that Senator Lautenberg
is simply using terrorism as an excuse to promote
rules that he previously pushed. Making it difficult
for law-abiding Americans to own guns should not be
the only accomplishment of new laws.

May 31, 2003

John Lott [send him mail], a resident scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the
newly released The Bias Against Guns, which examines
the evidence on multiple victim killings.

FAIR USE

=====
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the
people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who
mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
masters, but they mean to be masters.” — Daniel Webster