Emotive Policymaking; D. Bandow

That is evident even from the U.S. experi ence.Civil libertarian Don Kates points out that the number of firearms almost doubled between 1973 and 1992, while the murder rate fell. The facts, he observes, are "com pletely inconsistent with the shibboleth that Doug Bandow, a nationally syndicated columnist, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author and editor of several books, including Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World. 28 doubling the number of guns, especially handguns, would increase homicide rates." Many Guns Anyway, it is too late to try to disarm a society where 240 million guns are in private hands. Only the exceedingly law-abiding and extremely docile would give up their weapons. Thus, only totalitarian controls could eliminate private gun ownership. And even police-state measures wouldn't be enough. Otherwise there would be no illicit drug trade today.

Nor is disarmament a reasonable goal. It is easy to belittle the use of firearms for hunting or target-shooting, yet the right to engage in such activities is the bedrock of a free society. Sportsmen rarely misuse their weapons; those who don't should not be punished for the sins of the few who do. Using guns for self-defense is even more important. There is no more fundamental right, especially in a world in which the police offer only imperfect protection, at best. John R. Lott, Jr., formerly of the University of Chicago, figures that guns are used five times as often to prevent as to commit crimes. Nor should one desire a world in which only state officials possess weapons. Although a standing army has replaced the militia as America's main defense against foreign foes, the nation's founders rightly distrusted giving government a monopoly on deadly force. Tyranny may seem exceedingly unlikely, but disarming average citizens makes it more rather than less likely to occur. That's why the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Of course, Americans should hesitate to respond to even outrageous government abus es with violence. Once loosed, the dogs of revolution cannot be easily controlled. But the government murder (what else can it be called?) of the Branch Davidians at Waco and Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge cer tainly demonstrates that state authorities can not be trusted. Nevertheless, as predictable as the tides, Columbine led to a new campaign to regulate firearms. Proposals included background checks at gun shows, trigger locks, limits on the number of guns that can be purchased, a ban on concealable firearms, and increasing the legal age to buy firearms. Even some past critics of gun controls have flipped in the face of the public relations onslaught. This sophisticated campaign has been run as if guns were getting easier to buy. To the contrary, argues Lott, "Gun availability has never been as restricted as it is now." As recently as 30 years ago there were few restrictions on gun ownership, even by juve niles. Since then the number of words in fed eral gun laws has quadrupled, and state and local regulations have mushroomed.

It is hard to find any evidence that this growing body of rules has had any impact on crime. Writes Lott: "Not one academic study has shown that waiting periods and back ground checks have reduced crime or youth violence." So much for the vaunted Brady law. There is no reason to believe that the plethora of new proposals would have any better effect. Indeed, none would have stopped the Columbine massacre. As Lott points out, the killers "violated at least 17 state and federal weapons-control laws." A couple more on the books would have made no difference. But new rules could make crime more like ly by disarming potential victims and "citizen cops." Research by Lott suggests that allow ing people to carry concealed weapons lowers the violent crime rate. Indeed, private individ uals with guns ended two recent school shoot29 ings. As noted, there is no evidence that wait ing periods lower crime rates. Such restric tions do, however, prevent people from buy ing guns to protect themselves from imminent danger. Proposals to ban possession of weapons by 18-to-21-year-olds would be equally perverse. The federal government already bars anyone under 21 from buying a gun, but responsible adults between 18 and 21 should not be denied firearms: they are the most likely to be victims of violence. More over, John Loti has found that their use of concealed weapons also reduces crime.

In fact, kids who receive weapons from their parents are far less likely than their peers to misuse guns later in life. Interestingly, they are also far less likely to use drugs or other wise end up delinquent. Trigger locks would save few lives. A minuscule number of children die in gun acci dents, fewer than the number who die in fires they started with lighters, riding their bikes, or even drowning in water buckets. But trig ger locks would hinder people from defending themselves in an emergency. (They might also cause some gun owners to be overconfident, and thus less careful about keeping their weapons out of the hands of their kids.) Indi vidual owners can best balance the one risk, if they have small children, against the other, if they live in a dangerous neighborhood. Licensed dealers already must conduct background checks, including at gun shows. Private individuals need not, but there is no evidence that potential criminals flock to these very public gatherings to consummate illegal deals. Indeed, fewer than 1 percent of convicted felons obtained guns at shows; the Justice Department found that just 2 percent of guns used in crime came from gun shows.

The strongest response to gun crimes is to punish the criminal. Use of a firearm should automatically increase the sentence. Those who knowingly sell guns to criminals or juve niles should be likewise punished. Legislators should pause before passing any new gun-control measures. Tragedies like Columbine too often trigger policymaking by emotion. In this case, seeking to "just do something" is worse than doing nothing. It is likely to make us all less safe. D Let's Not Promote Dependency by Daniel T. Oliver D espite the good news that national wel fare rolls have declined nearly 40 percent over the last five years and that recent federal and state reforms appear to be at least partly responsible for this decline, the debate over welfare reform is going nowhere. Welfare-state liberals argue that if govern ment programs are significantly cut (which to date has not happened, as measured by feder al welfare appropriations), charity will not be able to make up the difference.1 Independent Sector, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of governmentfunded social-service organiza tions, believes that "charities cannot come close to filling the gap for proposed cuts in the funding of social programs." 2 Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that charities, churches, neighborhood associations, and other voluntary institutions can assume most if not all responsibilities for the needy now carried out by government.