Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
I have always been an advocate of the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.
I don't consider myself a gun nut, although some of my liberal friends probably think of me that way. I don't always agree with the National Rifle Association, and I'm not necessarily against every piece of gun legislation that comes out of Washington.
The Brady Bill, for example, calls for a waiting period to allow background checks on prospective gun owners. The idea is to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. That's OK by me.
It's probably not all that effective because I doubt most convicted felons waltz into gunshops and try to buy guns, but generally, a background check on prospective gun buyers doesn't bother me.
But one thing that does bother me is the way anti-gun folks twist the truth - that's a nice way of saying "lie" - when they talk about gun issues.
For example, the anti-gunners claim that some 60,000 felons (Sarah Brady says 100,000) have been prevented from getting guns by the Brady Bill.
If a convicted felon attempts to purchase a gun he can be prosecuted under Brady and sent back to prison for up to five years, so you'd expect a fair percentage of those 60,000 "felons" would be headed back to the slam, right?
The actual number is somewhat less than 60,000. It's seven. That's right, seven.
So what's up? Well, the Government Accounting Office study of Brady showed that in jurisdictions examined, 8 percent of Brady denials were for warrants for outstanding traffic or parking tickets and another 38 percent were for clerical errors.
Something else to consider about the effectiveness of Brady is that instant check procedures and changes in firearms laws in many states were in effect prior to Brady's passage.
Indiana, for example, already had a seven-day waiting period. California had a 14-day waiting period.
The result? There are 28 states, including the District of Columbia, where Brady has no effect at all.
Eighty-five percent of police chiefs polled by the National Association of Police Chiefs said Brady has not stopped criminals from obtaining handguns.
A poll in Police magazine showed that 77 percent of officers surveyed didn't support the bill.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of an impressive statistic? Brady works, you know.
And it seems there's always some anti-gun group or individual out there blathering some nonsense about guns.
How many times have you heard that a gun "accidentally went off" while it was being cleaned. Here's a flash. A gun can't accidentally "go off" by itself.
First, someone must place a round of ammunition in the chamber. Then, with all safety devices disengaged, the hammer must either fall or be struck with sufficient force to touch off the round.
Fact is, most "accidental discharges" involve someone pulling the trigger and dropping the hammer on a live round. Of course when the cops show up to clean up the mess, the guy who screwed up isn't going to say, "Yep, I dropped the hammer on a live round." No, he's gonna say, "I don't know what happened. The gun just went off."
So of course, it's the gun's fault. It's the evil gun, lurking in your dresser drawer just waiting to "go off." Somehow, the guy wielding the gun is left unaccountable and we have this perpetual myth about guns "going off."
If a guy swerves across the center line, do we blame the car? I can hear it now: "Hey, officer, I don't know what happened. The car just swerved." And we'd all believe it, right?
Here are some other anti-gun statements made recently, followed by the truth.
4 "Fourteen children are killed by handgun abuse every day in the United States." (Handgun Control Incorporated)
Fourteen children per day times 365 days equates to more than 5,100 children. The total number of children killed by abuse of firearms in the United States runs between 600 and 800 per year. That's a frightening statistic, but why would anyone want to exaggerate it?
4 "A 1977 law froze the number of handguns in Washington, D.C., and independent studies (one by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the other by a Justice Department analyst) showed that after the law took effect, handgun deaths in the District of Columbia fell 30 percent." (Handgun Control Incorporated)
The 1977 law banned privately owned handguns in Washington, D.C. In 1977, the homicide rate was approximately 22 per 100,000 population. It has since climbed to 80 per 100,000, with approximately 80 percent of those homicides committed with a banned handgun. The studies HCI refers to looked at the numbers of homicides, not the homicide rate. Since several hundred thousand people moved out of D.C. after 1977, the total number of homicides naturally dropped. But the rate of homicide - your chance of becoming a victim - increased dramatically.
4 "Firearms are responsible for the deaths of 45,000 infants, children and adolescents per year." (American Academy of Pediatrics)
Even if all persons from age 15 to 95 are considered "adolescents," this one can't be true. The 45,000 figure exceeds the total deaths in all ages and from all causes related to firearms.
4 "One million U.S. inhabitants die prematurely each year as the result of intentional homicide or suicide." (Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop)
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 1988 there were about 30,000 suicides (by all methods) and about 22,000 homicides (by all methods including legal self-defense). So the "one million" claim is off by about 1,800 percent.
"Easy access to firearms contributes to crime." (The Coalition for Gun Control)
Areas that have instituted tougher restrictions on the legal access or ownership of firearms have seen increases in violent crime rates. Canada and Britain have both increased restrictions on firearms owners in the past 15 years and have seen dramatic increases in violent crime. Canada, for example, passed restrictions on Jan. 1, 1978. From 1978 to 1991, Canada's violent crime rate has increased 89 percent, from 583 to 1,099 violent crimes per 100,000 population. This compares with a 59 percent increase in the U.S., from 476 to 758 violent crimes per 100,000 in the same time period.
Fact is, no gun law in any city, state or nation has ever been proven to reduce violent crime or slow its rate of growth compared to similar jurisdictions.
Yet we still have lots of folks out there demanding more gun laws on the premise that they reduce crime.
I think we should direct more energy toward locking up the people who abuse their right to own a gun. And locking them up for a long, long time.
