Learning from experience: N.Y. and D.C. gun follies

The anti-self-defense extremists want to make sure we don't look at other states' experience when considering passage of a concealed carry reform law here in Ohio. They have a bit of trouble making their blood-in-the-streets, crime-will-go-up, shoot-outs-at-fender-benders predictions in light of these state's experience.

Would they be any more interested in looking at states which have laws more akin to those they would prefer to get passed here in Ohio? Judging by recent experience in New York and Washington D.C., the answer is probably "no".

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

D.C.’s ineffective gun law underscores issue
Columbus Dispatch
Saturday, July 26, 2003
LINDA CHAVEZ

Democrats are hoping that gun control won’t be an issue in next year’s presidential election. Gun control is a loser at the polls, and Democrats know it, even if they are loath to admit it. Now, along comes Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to put a fly in the ointment by introducing a bill that puts gun control back in the spotlight and Democrats on the spot. Hatch’s bill would repeal a District of Columbia gun-control law that is one of the nation’s toughest.

In 1976, the city banned guns and required anyone already owning a legally registered gun to bring the weapon to police headquarters to re-register it or face prosecution.

I owned a revolver, which I had purchased after my husband was mugged in broad daylight, hit over the head with a two-by-four in front of our then 7-year-old son. We lived in a neighborhood that, while not among the city’s highest crime areas, nonetheless had been plagued by break-ins and several rapes within blocks of our home.

I’ll never forget the day I took my handgun downtown to re-register it under the new ordinance. The line stretched for several city blocks. I was six months pregnant with our second child. My ankles were swollen, the sun and humidity were unbearable, and the gun, a .357 Magnum, weighed heavily in my purse. After waiting in line for a couple of hours and making little progress toward the police station, I gave up and went home. I worried all night that, with the new law’s effective date just days away, I was about to become a felon.

The law had no effect in reducing Washington’s appalling violent crime rate. The city consistently ranks among the nation’s top seven in murders. Guns are plentiful on D.C. streets, yet law-abiding citizens may not own guns to protect themselves unless they were lucky enough to purchase and re-register them before Sept. 24, 1976.

Hatch’s bill has Democrats sputtering about "home rule," because it would overturn a city law, but they’d rather not talk about gun control per se so close to an election year. I don’t blame them. There’s no correlation between tough gun laws and lower crime. Indeed, all the liberal prognostication on Florida’s rightto-carry law, the first in the nation in 1987, proved to be wrong. Not only did Florida’s streets not turn into shooting galleries, as liberals predicted, but 24 other states have followed suit. There has been no discernible increase in violence as a result and not a single conviction of a permit-holder for killing an innocent party.

Hatch has the right idea. Treat D.C. residents like responsible citizens entitled to Second Amendment protection.

Click here to read the full op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch (subscription site - paid access only)

City Hall's Gun Folly
New York Post
July 28, 2003
By John R. Lott Jr.

AFTER the shooting at city hall on Wednesday, banning citizens with guns from public areas seems more necessary than ever. Yet, many other city halls across the country take a radically different approach. In two neighboring states, Pennsylvania and Vermont, as well as states across the nation from Virginia to Washington, concealed handgun permit holders are allowed to take their guns with them when they attend city council meetings.

Gun-free zones may appear like the obvious solution to New Yorkers, but consider an analogy: Suppose a criminal is stalking you or your family. Would you feel safe putting a sign in front of your home saying, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? Law-abiding citizens might be pleased by such a sign, but to criminals it is an invitation.

In 1985, just eight states had right-to-carry laws - laws that automatically grant permits for concealed weapons once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and (when required) complete a training class. Today, 35 states do.

Examining all the multiple-victim public shootings from 1977 to 1999 shows that, on average, states that adopt right-to-carry laws experience a 60 percent drop in the rate at which the attacks occur, and a 78 percent drop in the rate at which people are killed or injured from such attacks.

To the extent that such attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly took place in so-called "gun-free zones." Interestingly, the five shootings that Newsday lists as having occurred in or near American city halls since 1950 have all taken place in "gun-free zones."

The effect of right-to-carry laws is greater on multiple-victim public shootings than on other crimes, and for a simple reason: Increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect himself improves deterrence. Though it may be statistically unlikely that any person in particular in a crowd is carrying a concealed handgun, the probability that at least one person is armed is high.

For these attacks, the most important factor in determining the amount of harm is the length of time between the start of the attack and when someone with a gun can stop the attack. The longer the delay, the more people are harmed. By reducing the number harmed, right-to-carry laws take away much of the benefit these warped minds think they are achieving by their attack.

Click here to read the full op-ed in the New York Post.