John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts

LarryO1970 · 03-11-2008, 12:15 PM

For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller's, constitutional rights.

Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out .
Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : "banning handguns saves lives."
Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.
The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.
For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose 3.8 times more in the five years after it.
Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.
Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.
How could this be? D.C. officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit.
Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has actually sided with D.C. in important parts of the case, and the court has granted Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to make his argument. While largely paying lip service to the Second Amendment being an "individual right," the Department of Justice brief argues that an "unquestionable threat to public safety" from unregulated guns requires a lower standard must be adopted in defending it than is used to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights. But if they really believed that their evidence showed this, just as with the classic exception for the First Amendment of "falsely shouting fire in a theater," it wouldn't be necessary to treat the Second Amendment differently .
But what has not gotten much attention is that for the first time in U.S. history an administration has provided conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court. Vice President Dick Cheney has put forward his own brief arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that is no different than freedom of speech.
The DOJ constitutional argument is similar to that of D.C. It argues that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns. And they claim that D.C. residents still retain a right to self-defense because the city doesn't ban locked shotguns and rifles. Locks, they claim , "can properly be interpreted" as not interfering with using guns for self-protection.
Factual errors underlie the rest of the argument — for in D.C., rifles and shotguns become illegal as soon as they are unlocked. That means the city can prosecute anyone who uses one in self-defense, even if it was locked before the incident. Is that a "reasonable" restriction on self-defense? Gunlock requirements are also associated with more deaths and more violent crime as they make defensive gun uses more difficult. Machine guns are also not banned .
It makes sense that the DOJ is backing the ban, given that it would lose regulatory power if it were struck down. As the DOJ lawyers note in the brief, striking down this ban could "cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation."
The Department of Justice and D.C. politicians can talk all they want about how necessary handgun bans are to ensure public safety and the "reasonableness" of the restrictions. But hopefully the Supreme Court will see past that. At some point, hard facts must matter. This is one point where public safety and individual rights coincide.

ArkansasHunter · 03-11-2008, 01:01 PM

Lets hope when over 30 Attorney Generals that joined the brief the Texas A.G crafted will do some good along with the NRA and other Pro-Gun organizations.
But I personaly feel the worst about the outcome BUT we have to be Positive and what more can we do before next tuesday ?
A.H

LarryO1970 · 03-11-2008, 01:18 PM

Spread the word is all we can do ... hassle the elected officials and hope for the best.

kygunsmith · 03-11-2008, 06:32 PM

I tried to convince a senator, after decades of great service to our state, that he was making a mistake backing the Clinton gun legislation. I was really rough on him but the Democratic party is too strong in its hold on "bastards". He supported Cinton's bans after promising state voters he would not do so. The Dems are such liars!!

LarryO1970 · 03-11-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kygunsmith

I tried to convince a senator, after decades of great service to our state, that he was making a mistake backing the Clinton gun legislation. I was really rough on him but the Democratic party is too strong in its hold on "bastards". He supported Cinton's bans after promising state voters he would not do so. The Dems are such liars!!

... vote em out of office. It is the only way as we the people have any say in anything... and even that is in question.

troy2000 · 03-21-2008, 11:18 AM

A well-written article, Larry. give the proper credits when you post something like that. Tell us where you got it, or at least give the author's name.

LarryO1970 · 03-21-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

A well-written article, Larry. give the proper credits when you post something like that. Tell us where you got it, or at least give the author's name.

... I'm pretty sure I named the author ... he is John R. Lott Jr. ... did you see that in the original posting? It was in the very first line.

FOXNews.com - John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts - Opinion

LEE3370 · 03-21-2008, 01:26 PM

Dog gone Larry,
I liked it the way it was before the edit.

LarryO1970 · 03-21-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LEE3370

Dog gone Larry,
I liked it the way it was before the edit.

Yeah... I'm trying to not get kicked off the site. I thought it was good humored sarcasm... but some might not have seen it that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Yeah... I'm trying to not get kicked off the site. I thought it was good humored sarcasm... but some might not have seen it that way.

... not to mention, it was also posted in the "Firearms Related News" section by G & G ...

troy2000 · 03-21-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

... I'm pretty sure I named the author ... he is John R. Lott Jr. ... did you see that in the original posting? It was in the very first line.

FOXNews.com - John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts - Opinion

You're right. My bad...thanks for posting the article.

TXplt · 03-21-2008, 11:35 PM

Sorry I missed the original.....Happy Easter all.

ArkansasHunter · 03-21-2008, 11:42 PM

Who will be fighting for us when the Supreme court goes to decideing if we have the right to own guns ?

03-11-2008, 12:15 PM	#1
LarryO1970 "Blazing Saddles" GOV Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Johnson Creek, WI Posts: 2,872	John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller's, constitutional rights. Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out . Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : "banning handguns saves lives." Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience. The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth. For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose 3.8 times more in the five years after it. Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards. Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban. How could this be? D.C. officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has actually sided with D.C. in important parts of the case, and the court has granted Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to make his argument. While largely paying lip service to the Second Amendment being an "individual right," the Department of Justice brief argues that an "unquestionable threat to public safety" from unregulated guns requires a lower standard must be adopted in defending it than is used to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights. But if they really believed that their evidence showed this, just as with the classic exception for the First Amendment of "falsely shouting fire in a theater," it wouldn't be necessary to treat the Second Amendment differently . But what has not gotten much attention is that for the first time in U.S. history an administration has provided conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court. Vice President Dick Cheney has put forward his own brief arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that is no different than freedom of speech. The DOJ constitutional argument is similar to that of D.C. It argues that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns. And they claim that D.C. residents still retain a right to self-defense because the city doesn't ban locked shotguns and rifles. Locks, they claim , "can properly be interpreted" as not interfering with using guns for self-protection. Factual errors underlie the rest of the argument — for in D.C., rifles and shotguns become illegal as soon as they are unlocked. That means the city can prosecute anyone who uses one in self-defense, even if it was locked before the incident. Is that a "reasonable" restriction on self-defense? Gunlock requirements are also associated with more deaths and more violent crime as they make defensive gun uses more difficult. Machine guns are also not banned . It makes sense that the DOJ is backing the ban, given that it would lose regulatory power if it were struck down. As the DOJ lawyers note in the brief, striking down this ban could "cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation." The Department of Justice and D.C. politicians can talk all they want about how necessary handgun bans are to ensure public safety and the "reasonableness" of the restrictions. But hopefully the Supreme Court will see past that. At some point, hard facts must matter. This is one point where public safety and individual rights coincide.

03-21-2008, 11:18 AM	#6
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 9,453 Images: 9	A well-written article, Larry. give the proper credits when you post something like that. Tell us where you got it, or at least give the author's name. __________________ If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. -Anatole France

03-21-2008, 01:26 PM	#8
LEE3370 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Southern Indiana Perry County Posts: 396	Dog gone Larry, I liked it the way it was before the edit. __________________ GOD, COUNTRY, AND FLAG

03-21-2008, 11:35 PM	#11
TXplt Lost in the Ozone Again Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 2,827 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	Sorry I missed the original.....Happy Easter all. __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas

03-11-2008, 01:01 PM	#2
ArkansasHunter Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: South Arkansas Posts: 10,690	Lets hope when over 30 Attorney Generals that joined the brief the Texas A.G crafted will do some good along with the NRA and other Pro-Gun organizations. But I personaly feel the worst about the outcome BUT we have to be Positive and what more can we do before next tuesday ? A.H

03-11-2008, 01:18 PM	#3
LarryO1970 "Blazing Saddles" GOV Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Johnson Creek, WI Posts: 2,872	Spread the word is all we can do ... hassle the elected officials and hope for the best.

03-11-2008, 06:32 PM	#4
kygunsmith Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Kentucky Posts: 144	I tried to convince a senator, after decades of great service to our state, that he was making a mistake backing the Clinton gun legislation. I was really rough on him but the Democratic party is too strong in its hold on "bastards". He supported Cinton's bans after promising state voters he would not do so. The Dems are such liars!!

03-21-2008, 11:42 PM	#12
ArkansasHunter Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: South Arkansas Posts: 10,690	Who will be fighting for us when the Supreme court goes to decideing if we have the right to own guns ?