More Laws Won’t Cure Gun Problems

The House is expected to vote today on gun legislation spawned by the recent violence in public schools.

For President Clinton, the solution is yet more gun control and he attacks Congress for not already having approved his proposals. He claims that the National Rifle Assn. refuses to allow hunters to be “inconvenienced” even though the new laws will “for certain” save lives, and that the delay was orchestrated “to give the NRA time to lobby.” Contrast this with Clinton’s own approach to regulating how violence is portrayed in the media, where he opposes any immediate votes and instead wants yet another commission to study the problem, thus ensuring any action is delayed until tempers have cooled.

Is it so obvious that more gun control laws will save lives? There are already a large number of laws. The Columbine High School murderers violated at least 17 state and federal weapons control laws. Nationwide, there are more than 20,000 gun control laws that regulate everything from who can own a gun and how it can be purchased to where one can use it. It is hard to argue that even laws like the 1995 regulation banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school have created “safe zones” for our children.

More is at stake than simple “inconvenience.” We want laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it is frequently the law-abiding who obey the laws and bear their costs. The real question is whether well-intentioned laws disarm potential victims and thus make it easier for criminals. Potential victims use guns more than 2 million times each year to prevent violent crimes--five times higher than the number of crimes committed with guns annually.

Each of Clinton’s proposed regulations has costs and benefits:

* Waiting periods. Clinton focuses on the general potential benefits resulting from a “cooling-off period,” and such benefits might exist. Yet, those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly obtain a gun for protection. The Brady waiting period that lapsed last year as well as with state waiting periods indicate that these laws are either neutral or do more harm than good. In my academic research on the Brady law, I found that the national waiting period had no significant impact on murder or robbery rates and was actually associated with a few percent increase in rape and aggravated assault rates. Women suffered more from this law than men.

* Gun locks. Clinton claims that gun locks will save the lives of young children. But for children under 5, the Centers for Disease Control says that there were 17 accidental gun deaths in the U.S. in 1996. With around 80 million people owning 240 million guns, the vast majority of gun owners must be extremely careful or such accidents would be more frequent.

What is ignored are the thousands of children who are protected each year by parents or other adults using guns to defend themselves and their families. Locked, unloaded guns offer far less protection from intruders. Gun locks may make sense if one lives in a safe area and has children, but in high crime, poor areas, the risk of death from crime greatly outweighs any benefits.

* The gun show “loophole.” Despite Clinton’s claims that this is his most significant initiative, he has provided no evidence that gun shows are important in supplying guns to criminals. He also has completely misstated current law. The rules for purchasing guns at a gun show are identical to those for purchasing a gun anyplace else. Dealers who sell guns at a show must perform the same background checks and obey all the rules that they do when they make sales at their stores. Private sales are unregulated, whether they occur at a gun show or elsewhere. What the legislation will do is regulate private sales only at a gun show, and it is completely unenforceable. All someone has to do is walk outside the show to sell a gun. To regulate private sales, the government would have to register all guns and, just last week, Clinton finally admitted that he favored that. But the Democrats are unwilling to debate registration because they realize that they can’t win that politically.

Good intentions aren’t always enough. What counts is whether the laws will save lives, prevent injury and reduce crime. Passing laws based on supposed benefits while ignoring costs poses the real threat to people’s lives and safety.