Worth posting the text:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
US
Report
Telling it like it is
The New Australian
Guns and the public good:
an open letter to Congress
No. 123, 14-20 June 1999
Editor: the following letter is from 287 economists,
law-school professors and other academics to Congress,
regarding gun-control legislation. (Not all of the names of
the signatories appear here). The New Australian thinks it is
important to make this kind of material available to
Australians, not to promote guns but to counter the
one-sided propaganda that the Australian media parrots on
the question of guns and crime in America.
We have the likes of Cameron Forbes claiming that
American "teenagers plot to remedy slights by blowing
away fellow students with Tec-9s" (The Australian 15/6).
The real question here is why this kind of behaviour is
emerging anyway? Why now, when gun laws are tighter in
America than ever before? Why America and not
Switzerland where every male between 20 and 42 is
required by law to be armed, and where the number of guns
per capita exceed America? Could it have anything to do
with the rise of the destructive ideology of American
'liberalism'? Is it accidental that America's social
pathologies followed in the wake of this ideology? Whether
there is a connection or not is something that Australian
journalists will never investigate. There is always the
possibility they might discover something they don't like.
After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last two years, there
is an understandable desire to "do something." Yet, none of the
proposed legislation would have prevented the recent violence. The
current debate focuses only on the potential benefits from new gun
control laws and ignores the fact that these laws can have some very
real adverse effects. Good intentions don't necessarily make good
laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately lives, prevent
injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based upon their supposed
benefits while ignoring their costs poses real threat to people's lives
and safety.
These gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law-abiding
citizens and risk making it less likely that good people have guns
compared to criminals. Deterrence is important and disarming good
people relative to criminals will increase the risk of violent crime. If
we really care about lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy
events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that
never happen because people are able to defend themselves.
Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of their homes
stating, "This home is a gun-free zone." The reason is very simple.
Just as we can deter criminals with higher arrest or conviction rates,
the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves
also deters attacks. Not only do guns allow individuals to defend
themselves, they also provide some protection to citizens who choose
not to own guns since criminals would not normally know who can
defend themselves before they attack.
The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the
importance of deterrence. Police are extremely important at deterring
crime, but they simply cannot be everywhere. Individuals also benefit
from being able to defend themselves with a gun when they are
confronted by a criminal. Let us illustrate some of the problems with
the current debate. The Clinton administration wants to raise the age
at which citizens can possess a handgun to 21, and they point to the
fact that 18- and 19-year-olds commit gun crimes at the highest rate.
Yet, Department of Justice numbers indicate that 18- and
19-year-olds are also the most likely victims of violent crimes
including murder, rape, robbery with serious injury, and aggravated
assault. The vast majority of those committing crimes in this age
group are members of gangs and are already breaking the law by
having a gun. This law will primarily apply to law-abiding
18-to-21-year-olds and make it difficult for them to defend
themselves.
Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they also have
real costs. Those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly
obtain a gun for protection. Gun locks may prevent some accidental
gun deaths, but they will make it difficult for people to defend
themselves from attackers. We believe that the risks of accidental gun
deaths, particularly those involving young children, have been greatly
exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental gun deaths for
children under age 10. This exaggeration risks threatening people's
safety if it incorrectly frightens some people from having a gun in
their home even though that is actually the safest course of action.
Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison sentences for
adults whose guns are misused by someone under 18 and rules
limiting the number of guns people can purchase. No evidence has
been presented to show that the likely benefits of such proposals will
exceed their potential costs. With the 20,000 gun laws already on the
books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to
investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed
to the problems we currently face. The new legislation is ill-advised.
Sincerely,
Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird,
California State University, Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston
University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block,
University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont
Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, George Mason University; Colin
D. Campbell, Dartmouth College; Robert J. Cottrol, George
Washington University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University;
Mark Crain, George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola
College in Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard
Geddes, Fordham University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas;
John Heineke, Santa Clara University; David Henderson, Hoover
Institution, Stanford University; Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas,
Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of Wisconsin - Madison; James
Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New
Yor University; Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis
Locay, University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago;
Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University
of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A.
Miron, Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and
Mary; Craig M. Newmark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S.
Parker, George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern
University; Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B.
Rasmussen, St. John's University; Glenn Reynolds, University of
Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts,
Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles
Rowley, George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, University of
Chicago; William F. Shughart II, University of Mississippi; Thomas
Sowell, Stanford University; Richard Stroup, Montana State
University; Robert D. Tollison, University of Mississippi; Eugene
Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of Illinois; Benjamin
Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason University. [/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
