This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Gun Control - What Went
Wrong? by Dr. Michael S. Brown
Since the election of 2000, analysts have been pondering the anti-gun lobby's
sudden reversal of fortune. Politicians have deserted the cause like rats
leaving a sinking ship. The Million Mom March laid off most of its paid staff
and was thrown out of its free office space for alleged improprieties. Their
hated opponent, the National Rifle Association, has seen membership surge to an
all-time high of 4.3 million. Anti-gun operatives are questioning their strategy and trying to maintain
morale among the troops. Cracks are widening between the various organizations
who blame each other for tactical errors. What went wrong? Simply put, gun control was over-hyped. Politicians and
other opportunists were seduced by an emotional issue that appeared to have no
downside. Jumping on a bandwagon that claimed to protect moms and kids seemed a
quick and easy route to better approval ratings. With so much excitement in the
air, it was easy to ignore the logical flaws in the emotion-based arguments. Underlying the entire movement were two unquestioned assumptions. First, that
more gun laws were a surefire way to reduce crime and other forms of firearms
abuse. The second was the belief that guns were used far more often for evil
than for good. Since these were accepted as fact, the faithful were not
concerned by the lack of solid proof. Some followers of the faith realized that they were on shaky ground. Fake
studies were funded to show an overwhelming negative effect from civilian gun
ownership. Clever, but misleading sound bites were constantly created to
reinforce the impression of a terrible and growing epidemic of gun violence. By
the time one statement was discredited, another was ready to take its place. Statistics were twisted to make it appear that most victims of gun violence
were innocent middle class children, rather than young adult males involved with
gangs and drugs. Suicides, accidents, homicides and justifiable shootings by
police officers were lumped together to make the numbers more impressive. As
many observers have noted, when the facts did not support their beliefs, they
simply lied. While the media trumpeted gun control victories and parroted the party line,
opponents and neutral scholars were researching the facts. Since so many
countries, states and cities have enacted strict gun control laws, it is now
relatively easy to find out how effectively they have reduced crime and suicide.
The utter failure of new gun laws to create any positive effect whatsoever was
devastating to the anti-gun arguments. Even more damning is the data showing that crime often worsens when gun
control laws are tightened. Washington, D. C., California, England, and
Australia, are just a few of the areas where crime increased embarrassingly
after new laws were passed. They also proved the truth of the old saying that registration leads to
confiscation. When American gun owners saw video footage showing piles of
confiscated guns being destroyed in Australia, they were unlikely to believe
claims by the gun control lobby that their goals were strictly limited. Scholarly studies by
Professor John Lott showed another interesting effect.
In states that enacted laws enabling law abiding citizens to obtain concealed
weapon permits, crime dropped. This strikes at the very heart of the gun control
movement which claims that the proliferation of guns is responsible for crime.
Unable to rally enough academic horsepower to refute Lott's results, gun control
groups resorted to ugly personal attacks. While gun control arguments were being dismantled by academics, grassroots
action by gun owners exploded. Fearing extinction beneath the steamroller of
anti-gun hysteria, they bombarded elected officials with messages, formed many
new gun rights organizations and began participating in street demonstrations
for the first time. The appearance of these normal, sensible people counteracted
the attempt to portray gun owners as anti-social rednecks. Changes in media coverage also contributed to the climate shift. In the year
prior to the election, studies by media watchdog groups showed an overwhelming
bias, on the order of ten to one, in the slant of network news stories about the
gun control debate. The national media began to look like bullies ganging up on
gun owners. The Fox News Network was first to realize that many viewers were fed up with
the blatant bias and started airing stories that showed both sides of the issue.
Although the more liberal newspapers and networks maintained their anti-gun
bias, moderate and conservative media outlets suddenly felt free to address the
other side of the debate. The media monopoly enjoyed by the gun control lobby
was broken. Just before the election, when the NRA staged rallies that were attended by
thousands of angry gun owners, the politicians could see that the winds had
changed. Although the election produced no overwhelming victory for either side,
the opportunists realized that gun control was no longer a winning issue. Now
only the true believers remain. Does this mean the end of the gun control movement? Certainly not, because it
never depended on mass participation. Major funding has always come from a
relatively small number of rich donors. As long as the limousine liberals have
money to spend, the movement will live on. Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of Doctors
for Sensible Gun Laws, http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/dsgl.
Also from Dr. Brown |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
