[Drizzt]

Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)

April 27, 2003, Sunday, Metro Edition

SECTION: NEWS; OP EX; Pg. 7AA

LENGTH: 609 words

HEADLINE: Two books and a film take aim at gun issues

BYLINE: Steve Berg; Staff Writer

BODY:
We seem now to live in a world perceived through entirely separate sets of competing "facts." Fox News people tend not to mix with NPR people. Those who watch Bill Moyers seldom listen to Rush Limbaugh. Spin and truth are hard to decipher, especially on hot issues like gun control, as Minnesotans discovered in last week's legislative debate.

A new book and an Oscar-winning documentary film _ now extended in local theaters _ provide vivid examples of this polarizing trend. But, refreshingly, a second book offers a dispassionate survey of the best gun research and, therefore, a pragmatic, empirical approach to gun policy, showing what works and what doesn't. Too bad it will get less attention than the other two offerings.

Start with Wayne LaPierre's fascinating polemic, "Guns, Freedom and Terrorism" (WND Books). The attacks of September 2001 leave this longtime executive director of the National Rifle Association with a dilemma. Does the fight against terrorism require diminished personal liberties (airport frisks, easier phone taps) in order to protect the nation? Or might this expansion of government authority trample basic freedoms _ including gun freedoms?

LaPierre takes no chances, arguing strenuously that the war on terrorism is also a war on gun owners, that the anti-gun movement is using 9/11 to "destroy our Second Amendment freedom." The best defense against terror is an armed citizenry, he concludes, adding: "We must declare that there are no shades of gray in American freedom. It's black and white, all or nothing."

Michael Moore fires from the opposite barrel. If you haven't yet seen "Bowling for Columbine," see it. He asks the essential question: Why do Americans die from gun violence at a rate many times higher than in any comparable country? His answer is predictable and haunting: Guns are easy to get, and Americans live in an unjustified atmosphere of fear and paranoia. Our history and culture has left us trigger-happy.

Moore's film is a gem, but it's bent on revealing most Americans as nut cases, which, we presume, is not the case.

Facts are better served in the third offering, edited by public-policy professors at Georgetown and Duke universities. "Evaluating Gun Policy" (Brookings Institution Press) accomplishes its promise. Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook scour the work of two dozen scholars whose results defy both Moore and LaPierre. Some conclusions:

- Widespread gun ownership doesn't affect the overall crime rate but does make violence more lethal. Most guns are held by relatively few people, most of them in small towns and rural areas. Gun ownership does appear to deter some small amount of crime. But if so, more guns should be held by young black and Hispanic men, since they are many times more likely to be targets of gun violence than others.

- Attempts to require safety mechanisms on guns are relatively unimportant because the great majority of gunshot wounds are inflicted intentionally. More guns in private hands means more guns available to violent criminals through theft and black market sales. More guns mean more homicides, but not other crimes. More guns lead to more suicides.

- Gun bans have had greater impact than buy-backs. Guns appear not to deter burglaries. Conceal-carry laws have not had a major effect on crime rates. Strong court-based intervention and punishment threats against gang members with guns have been effective, as have police strategies to prevent gun carrying by youths and known felons.

Steve Berg is a Star Tribune editorial writer. He is at sberg@startribune.com.

[Correia]

Yep, that last book sure is middle of the road huh?

Geez...

[rock jock]

First, I question how the "data" these guys collected was evaluated. But, more to the point, even if their conclusions are true, SO WHAT? I don't carry a gun to reduce crime against society, I carry a gun to reduce crime against me and mine.

[Standing Wolf]

Another hatchet job on law-abiding American citizens from the Minneapolis Red Star Tribune.

[Don Gwinn]

But if so, more guns should be held by young black and Hispanic men, since they are many times more likely to be targets of gun violence than others.

Haven't the Gun Nuts been saying this for several years now? Duh. Does he think this is somehow counter to "The Gun Movement?"

Oh, I forgot. We're racists.

I find it interesting, too, that in an article that claims it will show two extremists and one middle-of-the-road work, the LaPierre book is "a polemic" and the Moore film is "a gem." Now, LaPierre's book definitely is a polemic, but Moore's film isn't? Get real. And that last book is certainly middle of the road. . . .

In Bernard Goldberg's book about his experience with CBS, Bias, he recounts the angry conversation he had with Dan Rather after he published an op ed on media bias in the Wall Street Journal:
Rather: "Of all the ways to say this, you had to do it in public, and on the op ed page of a right wing newspaper!"
Goldberg: "Well, you've written lots of things for the New York Times opinion page--what do you call that?"
Rather: "Middle of the road."

[Zander]

"Moore's film is a gem, but it's bent on revealing most Americans as nut cases, which, we presume, is not the case.So why, exactly, is Moore's film a "gem"?

Moore's film and any other of his regurgitations of sheer emotional rhetoric are worthy of condemnation for their idealogically-driven manipulation of "facts".

IOW, his machinations are despicable in the extreme...

Why would any thinking human being lend any credence to his arguments?

[ahadams]

anybody for emailing that reporter with the simple message:

you lost you lost you lost neener neener neeener?? :D

[Meow]

So why, exactly, is Moore's film a "gem"?
Because the Academy said so, that's why:rolleyes:

[HBK]

Do something about it. Go to www.revoketheoscar.com and do something about Moore's undocumentary.

[Hutch]

Middle of the road, as produced by Georgetown and Duke, and published by the Brookings Institute? It is to laugh....

[dustind]

Moore didn't even call his movie a documentary, I forgot what it was classified as, but its not a documentary. Calling it a documentary would be fraud.:fire: