As you are aware, we have extensively studied the firearm
debate and the consequences of restrictive firearm laws - not just here in the
U.S., but abroad, as well. We've written articles on how such laws have turned
places like South Africa, Jamaica, the Solomon Islands, and Zimbabwe (to name
just a few of the less well-known examples) into a paradise for criminals, and a
hell-hole for (disarmed) law-abiding citizens. There are many other examples
we've researched and have yet to write about.
But the consequences of restrictive firearm laws are
universal and without exception - it's just that some countries are in different
stages along the same road to civilian disarmament. And we have yet to find a
single "sensible" restrictive firearm law that:
- Has reduced violent crime
- Has prevented the acquisition of firearms by
criminals
- Has aided police in apprehending violent
criminals
- Has reduced overall suicide rates, or
firearm-related accidental deaths (As we're sure you are aware, the
Lott/Whitley paper on "safe-storage" laws documents the fact that
these laws are lethal laws for those who obey them.)
What we HAVE seen result from "sensible",
restrictive gun laws is:
- Their subversion to facilitate the creation of
government lists of lawful gun-owners, followed by - again and again, ad
nauseum - confiscation using these lists
- The creation of a burgeoning black market in
firearms
- A reduced access to (especially
self-defensive) firearms by law-abiding citizens
We've said some of this before in earlier
conversations, and while we don't wish to sound like a broken record, each new
article we research and write only serves to further validate every one of these
observations.
Instead of finding unbiased scientists among the
firearm-prohibitionists searching for truth, what we've found, instead, is
intentional distortion, outright lying, and bait-and-switch tactics, the extent
of which boggles the mind - a whole cadre of anti-gun
"junk-scientists" resorting to lies and propaganda, because that's the
only means of keeping their agenda alive.
And every one of them - Kellermann, Hemenway, Wintemute,
Cook, Ludwig, and all the rest of their ilk - are full of
"reasonable", "sensible" firearm proposals for America's
politicians to enact.
We would venture to say that your own increasingly
prolific writing on the firearm debate has provided you with similar validation
of these observations.
Perhaps the most disturbing "accomplishment"
of these laws (at least to us) is the transformation of the way children are
introduced to firearms in America today. Instead of knowledge passing from
parent to child, in a safe and responsible manner - as used to happen in the
past - "sensible" gun laws now force many children to learn about guns
from their peers, and on the street.
Yet, according to the U.S. DOJ's ongoing Rochester
Study on Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse - totally ignored by the
mainstream media and most of this country's politicians - children who were
introduced to firearms by their parents are the least violent of all groups
studied.
Lastly, there's a great book (now out of print) written
by former Chief Inspector of British Police, Colin Greenwood, entitled
"Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England
and Wales". While Greenwood's book was published in 1972, his observations
and conclusions are still right on the money (and perfectly borne out by current
events in Great Britain on firearm-related crime). Here are some excerpted
comments:
"[If the question is] 'How can we stop criminals
from obtaining firearms?' From the evidence so far supplied, the answer appears
to be that we cannot...Criminals have proved to us that firearms controls will
not deny their small class of people access to firearms whenever they want
them...Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with
a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before...one is
forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was
very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone,
convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without
restriction."
Greenwood concluded: "Indeed, it is possible to
build up a sound case for abolishing or substantially reducing controls."
It's clear that Greenwood is one who doesn't believe in
the concept of "sensible" gun laws. (BTW, Greenwood is still alive and
well, and recently authored an article on "Britain's Handgun Ban"
which appeared in the Australian Shooters Journal.)
If DSGL ever changes its name and abandons the premise
of "sensible gun laws", we'd probably have a change of mind about
becoming part of the group.
But at this point, we think that the ONLY kind of
"sensible" gun law is one which repeals existing restrictive gun laws,
and that's not what we think DSGL has in mind.
- Paul & Joanne
Articles by Doctors Gallant and Eisen can be found in many places. A
place to start would be National
Review Online where they often co-author articles with Dave Kopel.
RETURN TO TOP
