Response to the article
"Realistic solutions to gun violence"
Response to "Realistic solutions to gun violence", by HCI President Michael D. Barnes, Boston Globe, 12/29/2000 In his Boston Globe article Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) president Michael Barnes attacks right-to-carry handgun law proponents for not giving context for their statements. Yet his article cites not one reference to document sources for his assertions. That failure to follow his own advice justifies suspicion of his statements. Many of his statements are just wrong. Some are misrepresentations of right-to-carry proponents positions. Mr. Barnes misrepresents the value of right-to-carry when he writes: The proponents of concealed weapons laws always give their facts with no context; they say that crime goes down where people are allowed to carry guns. But the fact is, crime has been going down everywhere, and it goes down faster in states where concealed weapons are prohibited. Actually, these proponents say violent crime can be reduced by right-to-carry relative to what it would have been without. Statistical analyses have consistently proved this case for every state which has passed right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1995 (see Prof. John Lott's book with massive context "More Guns, Less Crime", University of Chicago Press, 1998, Table 3.2 and Table 4.1). That book provides as clear a context as you can get. Mr. Barnes also misrepresents the significance of crime falling faster in states with a restrictive firearm policy, say Massachusetts, than in states that honor a right-to-carry such as Vermont. Massachusetts was reported by the FBI to have a violent crime rate of 551.0 in 1999 (FBI UCR rates per 100,000 people) and 621.3 in 1998. So, Massachusetts' rate decreased 11.3 percent between 1998 and 1999 compared to an increase for Vermont of 7.1 percent. However, violent crime rates in Vermont were only 20 percent of Massachusetts' rates -- 106.3 in 1998 and 113.8 in 1999. In short Massachusetts is five times more violent than nearby Vermont. So, why would Mr. Barnes think rate decrease is something to brag about when violence is so much higher in restrictive states than in right-to-carry states? Imagine that -- gun prohibition heaven, Massachusetts, has five times the violence of gun prohibition hell, Vermont, where just anybody can carry a hidden handgun to protect themself. So, when Mr. Barnes asks, "What if we allowed everyone to carry hidden handguns to protect themselves?", the answer is that violent crime will decline. Take all restrictions off and in a few years Massachusetts will have Vermont's violent crime rate and life will be better for all decent citizens. Mr. Barnes does not want the common folk to take responsibility for their own safety. That is why he writes "we" should not trust the people to protect themselves. But trusting the people works. You can see how well it works from the records of right-to-carry states such as Florida, Texas, Virginia, and many others for crimes committed by Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders. In Florida, over the 10 year period between 1987 and 1997, only 84 CHL holders lost licenses because of felonies committed with handguns -- that amounts to nearly 4 per 100,000 -- less than 1% of Massachusett's rate). In all of these states revocation of licenses for crime committed by CHL holders has been negligible. The conclusion is inescapable -- decent people can be trusted to carry firearms and will make a difference in deterring crime. Mr. Barnes is certainly correct in his statements: The laws of Massachusetts are not the laws of Vermont or New York or Nevada. Unfortunately, it is the criminals who know this more than anybody. Professor Lott has reported that criminals will migrate away from risky states where they might encounter an armed citizen to restrictive states where criminals are protected from their victims. Rather than proposing that we should make it risky for criminals everywhere, Mr. Barnes calls for the nostrum of "common sense national gun laws that reduce easy access to [guns]." Mr. Barnes blames the right-to-carry states (peaceful Vermont) to excuse gun control failures such as the Wakefield shooting (in violent Massachusetts). His message is for people to give up responsibility for protecting themselves -- lets make Vermont more like Massachusetts! Criminals may favor this nostrum since it improves their on-the-job safety, but decent people should not. Right-to-carry proponents believe people need to take responsibility for their own safety. Returning to that old fashion American attitude is the path to better public order. Philip F. Lee 12921 Two Farm Dr. Silver Spring, MD 20904 301-622-0446 (H) 703-418-8225 (W) Philip F. Lee has a PhD in Mathematics from Georgia Institute of Technology, 1970. He has more than 28 years experience in the application of statistics to defense and industrial applications.
Added on 9/1/01 by Phil Lee pflee (at) wdn (dot) com.