The US Centers for Disease Control (for our UK friends, that’s the same as “Centres for Disease Control”) recently admitted that gun control laws can’t be shown to do much of anything to reduce violence.
From the press release:
The Task Force review of the effects of various laws showed insufficient evidence to conclude whether firearms laws impact rates of violence.
Among the areas under task force review were: bans on specific firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearm laws.
A finding of “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness” means that, based on the current body of literature, the Task Force is unable to determine whether the intervention was effective or not. The task force agreed that additional scientific studies relating to these interventions might help to provide clearer answers.
A little background and a few points to consider:
The CDC has a long history of being virulently anti-gun. That it would make such an admission, even in such painfully hedged terms, is no small thing. The diversion of the Centers for DISEASE Control into the gun debate was a prime example of mission creep and of the notion that violence is not the result of personal decision and (ir)responsibility, but rather was the result of impersonal forces and even of inanimate objects.
Alternatively, this may also be cited as an example of the way that administrative agencies bend to the political winds – the CDC was pro-gun control under pro-gun control administrations, and now . . . . My acquaintance with the tenured civil servant class, though, tends to undercut this attack. The folks who generate these kinds of reports are very nearly untouchable, and if anything their motivation increases when they disagree with the politicals.
I have always said that the burden of proof rests on those who would restrict our liberties. This report would seem to pretty well indicate that the burden has not been met on gun control.
It will be interesting to see if this affects the coming expiration of the assault weapons ban. Bush has said he will sign an extension of the ban if it lands on his desk (another black mark on his permanent record). The CDC report should be useful to opponents of the ban.
With all this talk about regulation of firearms, one must pose the question: if a person is not free to protect themselves from armed criminals then are they really free?
Is freedom expecting that the state will be responsible for your personal and family’s security.
Even the Guardian admits gun control isn’t helpful. Stand by for corrections.
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws…
Especially for those of us who shoot, own guns, have been on the receiving end of UK gun bans, and who have looked into the subject a little bit – qualifications not possessed by the vast majority of politicians, at least in this country – the US CDC’s admission provokes the question, So what’s new? The other day I posted, on Dale Amon’s “Ups & Downs of Murder” thread, an extract from the conclusions drawn by by one of the very few authorities to have investigated the benefits of gun control, to the effect that such controls were a waste of time & money. I would bet a large sum that most of the more vociferous anti-gun politicians, here and elsewhere, know this too. But it doesn’t suit their agenda of social control and state supremacy.
Has anyone ever undertaken a rigorous investigation of the value of the US assault weapons ban? The UK parallel is the ban on semi-automatic rifles (above .22 WMR) in 1988 following the Hungerford killings: the latter remain the only case on record of a lawfully owned semi-auto being criminally misused.
Has anyone ever undertaken a rigorous investigation of the value of the US assault weapons ban?
I guess it depends on what you mean by “value.” If you mean, “has this law resulted in any reduction in the use of assault weapons of the type banned for criminal purposes,” the answer would be “no.”
However, it would be “no” because the damn things were never used for criminal purposes (in any meaningful way) in the first place. It is in principle impossible for the assault weapons ban to make anyone safer, because no one was threatened by them in the first place.
As you note, Tony, the real value of gun control to politicians is not in whether it makes their constituents safer. Whether the assault weapons ban served these other purposes, I could not say.
Tony,
The assault weapon ban has had no effect because, not only does gun control not work, the “assault weapon” ban is totally and utterly cosmetic.
See here for the description of what makes an assault weapon according to the ban.
I own a semi-auto combat rifle. As you probably know, it uses the same cartridge and hits as hard as a fully automatic AK-47.
If I were to add a flash hider and telescopic stock to my SKS; or a pistol grip (it already has the bayonet mount), it would then be banned as an assault weapon. It would fire the exact same way and be exactly as lethal as before, but because it would now look scary to gun-fearing pussies, it would be illegal.
The ban is idiotic and unconstitutional.
Give Bush a break. Public support for the assault weapons ban is in the 85-90 range. Bush needs all the support he can get, and his pro-gun allies like the NRA can read through the lines. Any assault weapon has to pass through the House of Representatives before it reaches Bush’s desk, and the chance of that happening is exactly zero. The NRA (fortunately) *owns* the House.
I forgot to mention that the assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, is due to expire in 2004. Speaker of the House Tom DeLay has announced that he will let the ban die. Bush’s “support” for the assault weapons ban is thus completely superficial and irrelevant. It’s a way to get political points without really making anybody mad.
Well, Alex, he made me mad, and a lot of other gun nuts that I know. In short, he pissed off part of his base.
If the bill will never make it to his desk, why did he feel the need to go out of his way and say he would sign it?
Bush is engaging in the fallacy of pursuing the undecided voters and trying to get Dems to like him. No Dem will cross over and vote for him because of this. Further, undecided voters are, almost by definition, ignorant and apathetic, and also unlikely to vote for him because of this statement. By the time the election rolls around, it will be forgotten.
In short, Bush made a gratuitous statement that he would further a bad policy, and in so doing he crossed at least part of his base to no apparent gain. This was a politically smart move how, again?
I noticed that the list of ‘ineffective’ laws included “Shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws. I wonder if this is a sort of trojan horse, as those are not anti-gun but pro-gun laws?
They also have some ‘sufficient evidence’ . A University of Chicago researcher who set out to prove them ineffective was – to his credit -overcome by honesty when the evidence showed them to be very effective in the states where they have been in force for a while. I don’t have the reference – perhaps some other commenter does.
Perhaps I am being overly paranoid instead of just appropriately paranoid, but I wonder why carry laws got mixed into the rest of this stew.
I’m with Alfred E. Neuman… the ban is “idiotic and unconstitutional”. It’s also very typical.
I’m curious where this “Public support for the assault weapons ban is in the 85-90 range” comes from.
There are over 75 million (voting) gun owning households in the U.S. Many more support Second Amendment protections, as a matter of principle.
If Bush SUPPORTS the assault ban he will lose his CORE constituency. Gun fearing wussies aren’t going to vote for Bush EVER, but his core voters will not stand for him agreeing to this.
Don’t forget the “assault weapons” ban covers new high cap mags. I am holding off on getting anymore until this thing expires and they come down in price.
Well, there’s still a bunch of goons calling for .50 cal ban even though not one has ever been used in a crime – $3500 to $8000 25 lb single shot bolt action rifles aren’t good for robbing 7-11’s.
I don’t know where they get that “shall issue” is ineffective – maybe they are comparing it to states with slightly more restrictive CCW laws, or to no permit required Alaska. From everything I’ve seen there’s been drops in crime in states granting CCW.
Put in for my permit today.
The fact that the CDC said they didn’t have “sufficient evidence” of the effectiveness of shall issue concealed carry laws, even after John Lott’s work showing that such laws are effective, shows the depth of their bias.
Now, there are those who challenge Lott’s work, but to my mind none of the challenges have been particularly effective.
It is interesting, isn’t it, that they lumped in a law that basically protect the right to keep and bear arms with laws that are all about denying that right.