Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has written an incredibly myopic piece that tries to tie gun rights proponents to mass murders (also ).
After each horrific shooting, some leaders in Washington have said the solution is to do nothing, simply continue to enforce the existing laws, just as we have been doing. The gun lobby, meanwhile, calls for weakening our already paltry laws to get more guns to more people in more places. It is time for the gun lobby to stop stoking fear among gun owners with false claims about the government. It is time for the gun industry to stop capitalizing on those ginned-up fears to spread weapons of war among the public.The gun lobby's rhetoric has consequences. We have seen how profound those consequences can be.
We have a gun crisis in America. As important as the economic crisis is, the right to be safe at home and work and play needs at least as much attention from our policymakers as the right to economic security. It is time for leaders in Washington to drop empty platitudes after each horrific shooting, and instead do what they're paid to do: show backbone, and enact reasonable laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
Helmke's argument is completely disingenuous: does he really think psychos who want to murder dozens of people will be stopped by yet another law? No, I don't think he does. Is the Brady Campaign only in favor of "reasonable laws" that "keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people"? No, they favor banning all guns. (As does President Obama.)
Let's turn the tables: how many people have died because of anti-gun nuts? How many murders could have been prevented if the victim were armed instead of helpless? How many rapes? How many kidnappings? How many robberies? How many millions? Guns are used in self-defense every day.
And of course, what's the difference between a citizen and a peasant? A gun.
If you're really only interested in self-defence, wouldn't you be better off wearing kevlar? It's not like you can shoot a bullet out of the air.
Studies (eg. Kilias 2001) show that gun control laws do not alter the total amount of violent crimes, but they do reduce the proportion of those crimes which involve guns. As a person very unwilling to carry or draw a weapon on anyone, I'd be worse off in a society without gun control.
Furthermore, studies also show that the increased risk from gun-related domestic violence outweighs any protection that a gun in the house might give you against intruders (eg. Kellermann 1993).
John Lott's research says the opposite, and being in the UK you seem to have fared especially poorly from your country's handgun ban. Even if you don't carry a gun yourself, the knowledge that some citizens do deters criminals.
Michael, the 1997 firearms amendment act is pretty irrelevant, it mostly affected gun club members keeping their weapons at the club rather than at their home. It hasn't been legal to own a gun for self defence in the UK since 1937. It can only be a mistake that it features prominently in his report, so it makes me question its seriousness.