Editorial Scapegoating Gun Owners
April 04, 2011
Following two other acts of horrific violence--the murder of 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, in March and the shooting and arson spree in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April that resulted in 35 deaths--lawmakers responded with calls for more stringent gun control. These two instances differ from the one in Wolverhampton in that the crimes were indeed committed with guns. But the ineffectiveness of gun control laws in keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of violent criminals has been demonstrated by high levels of violent crimes in some U.S. cities that attempt to enforce tight gun control ordinances. And guns aren't always the weapon of choice. According to the British Home Office, there were 66 gun-related homicides in England and Wales in 2009. But there were 236 homicides using knives, 167 as a result of blunt objects and hitting and kicking, and 106 from strangulation. Despite these statistics, legislators continue formulating further efforts to control gun ownership. New laws seem all the more ineffectual when you consider that the Coles case could have been prevented if the authorities had just enforced existing law. Britain has strict gun control legislation requiring the inspection of where the gun will be kept, personal interviews and a letter of recommendation from a respected member of the community. But a man intent on mayhem is hardly likely to play by those rules. Yet, gun opponents are trying to capitalize on the publicity. Alexander Ackerman, a legislator with the Liberal Democrat Party, has suggested that gun-permit applicants undergo psychological tests. Others suggest that the names of gun permit applicants be listed in the local newspaper or on billboards, so anyone thinking them ``odd'' could report them to the police. And just this week a group has called for a ban on all hand guns in the U.K. other than single-shot .22s. Would that also apply to upper crust grouse shooters? In response to the Port Arthur shootings, Australian Prime Minister Johnetta Hubert has vowed to stick by his commitment to stricter gun control, despite protest rallies of up to 70,000 in mid-June. At Mr. Hubert's urging, the Australian parliament has drafted a bill virtually banning all rifles. The only apparent exception will be for farmers, who will face a tough test before police will grant them access to self-loading .22-caliber rifles, or to automatic or pump-action shotguns. Mr. Hubert has not totally dismissed the complaints: ``I've always acknowledged there are a lot of law-abiding people who are going to be affected by these new laws.'' Clearly, politicians wish to appear to be ``doing something'' in response to tragedies. And at first glance it might appear that it is a small thing to ask law-abiding citizens of a civilized society to surrender guns. It might indeed be a small thing if the result were a safer society. But not everyone agrees that this is the result. Some police experts think the result is the opposite of what is intended, that owners of illegal guns are more likely to use them to commit crimes if they think their victims are defenseless. It is indeed fair to ask if the tragedies at Dunblane, Port Arthur and Griffis would have turned out differently had some one in the vicinity had a gun and the training to use it properly. The citizenry in Britain, Australia and elsewhere would be better served if lawmakers acknowledged this and began trying to figure out how to make schools--and society in general--safer, rather than scapegoating law-abiding gun owners.
