Drizzt
Member
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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
