Myths lead to bad laws

John Stossel, writing for Real Clear Politics, has penned an essay which I believe should be mandatory reading for every literate man, woman and child in the country. And for those who can't manage the task, someone more able should read it to them. The subject is one which we have rarely, if ever, given space to here and at Running Scared - gun control. Before you let your eyes roll and ask why I'm bothering to cover this subject in the midst of all the swirling stories of natural disasters, war and Plamegate, take a moment and consider that some subjects are too pervasive over the arc of history to completely ignore.

Stossel's opening paragraphs set the tone for the article. (All emphasis in the following portions of quoted text is mine.)

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.

"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

This debate has raged for generations, and you can find ample material to support either side of the cause you like. If you have the money, you can get an expert opinion from doctors, psychologists, politicians and judges to prop up either side. But Stossel took a unique approach. He decided to ask the real experts. Criminals who use guns in crimes.

"I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."

"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

These are all valid points, but at the bottom of the article, Stossel gets to the point which I think, given the current administration, should be a wakeup call to all of America. No matter how little interest you have in this subject, if you read nothing else of this article, please read this portion. He is discussing the "special risk" involved in abandoning the second amendment and moving towards a "gun-free" society.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.

However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

"Where all other rights have failed." Kind of a chilling phrase, isn't it?

Let me be clear about something here. I'm not a member of the NRA (though I was many years ago before they went off the deep end) and I do believe in some limited, sensible gun control laws. I think the size and power of weapons available for civilian use can reasonably be regulated. Whether you are interested in hunting, sport target shooting or home defense, nobody needs a mortar or a .50 caliber machine gun. It would ruin the meat, obliterate the clay pigeon or take out the walls of your home. They're also a real bear to aim.

I definitely think that having everyone register all of their weapons and keeping that information available in a national database to aid in law enforcement is a sound plan. I also think that there's nothing wrong with a 72 hour "cooling off" period prior to the purchase of a weapon - particularly a handgun. I can't think of a single instance in the legal uses of guns cited above where you absolutely have to have one the same day. Practically the only time somebody is rushing out to get a handgun is in a moment of violent passion. Everyone benefits if a person in such a situation is given sufficient time to:

• cool off
• sober up
• or simply reflect on how bad they look dressed all in orange and how much they would not enjoy dancing in a cell for a burly inmate who insists on calling them "Louise"

We can have some regulation on the ownership of guns without forfeiting our right to keep and bear arms. The words of the constitution still stand today.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

And before you start in with the most common argument I hear about the Second Amendment, it is interesting to note that there is still a federal law in place which states that every able-bodied American man between the ages of 17 and 44 is a member of the United States Militia.