Study Proves Ineffectiveness of Brady Act
Chris Freiman, Staff Writer

In July 1999, neo-Nazi Benjamin Nathaniel Smith went on a shooting spree in
the Chicago area. Four years prior to this massacre, Illinois implemented
the Brady Act, which imposed strict regulations on gun transactions. At
first, Smith tried to buy guns from a licensed dealer, but was denied. His
background check showed that he was under a court order to stay away from
his girlfriend. Smith sidestepped this obstacle by visiting a black market
dealer who furnished him with the .22-caliber semiautomatic weapon he used
to kill two men and wound nine others.
The gun control measures mandated by the Brady Act had no effect on Smith
and others like him. Duke professor Philip Cook’s recent statistical study
has now confirmed the impotence of the Brady Act. Working with Dr. Jens
Ludwig, Dr. Cook found that America’s most famous gun control measure does
not prevent homicides.
Beginning in 1994, the Brady Act required federally licensed firearms
dealers in all states to initiate a background check on would-be handgun
buyers, and to observe a waiting period of one week before transferring the
handgun. 18 states already had similar gun control laws in place, so they
were exempt from the Brady Act. Cook set these 18 states as a control group
to compare against the 32 “experimental” states that had to implement the
new gun control measures.
Cook states, “We found that the before-and-after trends in homicide were
virtually identical in the “experimental” and “control” states. So we
concluded that whatever effect the Brady Act had on homicide was negligible
in a statistical sense.” Unfortunately, the Brady Act is not simply
ineffectual, but pernicious. John Lott, a senior research scholar at Yale
Law School, found that the national waiting period on guns was associated
with a small increase in rape and aggravated assault rates. The blood of
innocent people is being spilled because stalking victims cannot always wait
seven days for a gun. The Brady Act cripples the rape victim, not the
rapist. More “gun control” gives criminals more power over the American
public.
Cook believes that the Brady Act failed because would-be criminals don’t buy
their guns through federally licensed dealers – the only dealers regulated
by the Brady Act. His solution is to channel all gun transactions through
these federally licensed dealers so that the government can perform
background checks and keep the records of all gun owners. This solution is
as solid as a fistful of smoke.
Of course it would be nice if the police could track criminals through their
gun records. That is why no competent criminal – a person that breaks the
law for a living – will buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 93 percent of the
guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful purchase.
Federally licensing more dealers will not prevent criminals from getting
firearms. Rather, they will just buy their guns on the black market, which
doesn’t require forms, background checks, or waiting periods. What’s more,
the litany of forms and fees will discourage honest, law-abiding citizens
from owning guns. In essence, “gun control” disarms the victims while
leaving criminals unscathed.
It is the proper role of government to protect the rights of its citizens.
The government, however, is not omnipresent or omnipotent. When a man is
assaulted in an alley or when a woman is raped by an intruder in her
apartment, the police cannot be counted upon to get there in time. This is
why people need a personal means of self-defense: a gun. When the government
denies its citizens the right to bear arms, it denies them the right to
protect their lives.
Unfortunately, criminals can see and hear the news reports detailing the
latest restrictions on guns just as well as the rest of us. They know when
the government is disarming the public. It stands to reason that a criminal
is more likely to commit crimes when fewer people have guns; his job is made
safer. The government might as well erect signs outside of homes that read
“Gun-free zone” and ask criminals nicely if they will please refrain from
committing crimes. Rather than curb violence, “gun control” promotes it.
America will be a safe nation when it learns that it needs protection not
from gun owners, but from politicians who can’t shoot straight.

Original Article:
http://www.dukereview.org/viewarticle.asp?id=5