A Light Goes on at the CDC
> No escaping gun-control reality.
>
> By Timothy Wheeler
>
> In a marvelous moment of candor, a federal Centers for Disease
> Control (CDC) committee has reported that it cannot find any evidence
> that gun-control laws reduce violent crime. American gun owners spent
> most of the 1990s telling the CDC that gun control is ineffective at
> best and harmful at worst. So it's gratifying that the lesson is
> finally sinking in.
>
> A task force convened by the CDC issued its report after two years of
> poring over 51 scientific studies of gun laws. The group considered
> only research papers that met strict criteria for scientific
> soundness. The CDC distances itself with a disclaimer, but it's
> pretty clear that it supports the task force's conclusions. The
> report contains no dissenting position or minority view from CDC
> managers.
>
> Covered in the review were gun-ban laws, restrictions on acquiring a
> gun, waiting periods for buying a gun, firearm-registration laws,
> firearm-owner licensing laws, concealed-carry permit laws, zero-
> tolerance laws, and various combinations of firearm laws. Most
> Americans who haven't tried to buy a gun lately are blissfully
> unaware of just how many laws there are. In Washington, D.C., for
> example, it's impossible for a regular citizen to legally own a
> firearm (although criminals seem to have no problem getting
> one). In other cities the legal hoops a gun buyer must jump through
> are almost as much a barrier to ownership as an outright ban.
>
> One would think that at least some good would come from all these
> laws. Researchers should be able to prove that the laws prevent at
> least a few murders, rapes, and robberies. Amazingly, they can't. And
> even more amazingly, they have admitted that they can't.
>
> But what about the violent crimes that gun-control laws have allowed
> by preventing victims from defending themselves? This well-known
> downside to gun-control laws keeps showing itself over and over
> again. For example, during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, frantic
> Angelenos rushed to gun stores to arm themselves against marauding
> thugs. Many were outraged to discover California's 15-day waiting
> period for buying a gun.
>
> A woman stalked by a homicidal ex-husband is left completely
> vulnerable by waiting-period laws. These supposedly provide a
> "cooling off" period for impulsive people who would buy a gun and in
> the heat of passion, commit a crime with it. Such a patronizing law
> cruelly imperils a stalked woman, who desperately needs the
> protection that only a firearm can give her.
>
> And looking at Washington, D.C.'s reputation as the violent-crime
> capital, how could we think that its gun ban law was ever worth
> anything? Does anyone really believe that justice is served by
> disarming good citizens when violent criminals so obviously ignore
> the ban? Barring gun ownership by good people is worse than useless.
> It perverts justice by enabling violent felons while turning into
> outlaws people who dare to own a gun for legitimate self-protection.
>
> America has laws that ban handguns. We have laws that ban big,
> expensive guns and other laws that ban small, cheap guns. We have
> laws that condemn some guns as illegal simply on the basis of their
> appearance. Other laws force average people to be fingerprinted to
> carry a firearm for self-protection, even though years of experience
> show such demeaning measures to be unnecessary.
>
> The laws are so numerous and so dauntingly complex that in some cases
> even law enforcement authorities can't figure out what they mean.
> Such a confusing web of legal traps can easily ensnare an honest
> citizen.
>
> In all, America has 20,000 laws that endanger, humiliate,
> criminalize, or otherwise burden good citizens who exercise their
> constitutional right to own a gun. Now the CDC, a government agency
> not known for its friendliness to gun owners, reports that it cannot
> find any evidence that the laws are effective.
>
> We should take warning from the closing comments of the CDC task
> force's report. They are reminiscent of the agency's glory days of
> gun-control advocacy. America is described as an "outlier" in gun-
> crime rates among industrialized nations. The report insists
> "research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as
> one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and
> firearms injury." In other words, keep researching until we find the
> conclusion we prefer  guns are bad and they should be banned.
>
> Liberal reformers who would curb the freedom of others are obliged to
> prove the efficacy of gun-control laws. They have failed to do so.
> Gun owners have always known that gun-control laws aimed at them
> instead of criminals are futile and unjust. Now that everybody else
> is finally getting it, perhaps it's time for a moratorium on new gun
> laws.
>
>  Timothy Wheeler, M.D. is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun
> Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wheeler200310220911.asp
>
> No escaping gun-control reality.
>
> By Timothy Wheeler
>
> In a marvelous moment of candor, a federal Centers for Disease
> Control (CDC) committee has reported that it cannot find any evidence
> that gun-control laws reduce violent crime. American gun owners spent
> most of the 1990s telling the CDC that gun control is ineffective at
> best and harmful at worst. So it's gratifying that the lesson is
> finally sinking in.
>
> A task force convened by the CDC issued its report after two years of
> poring over 51 scientific studies of gun laws. The group considered
> only research papers that met strict criteria for scientific
> soundness. The CDC distances itself with a disclaimer, but it's
> pretty clear that it supports the task force's conclusions. The
> report contains no dissenting position or minority view from CDC
> managers.
>
> Covered in the review were gun-ban laws, restrictions on acquiring a
> gun, waiting periods for buying a gun, firearm-registration laws,
> firearm-owner licensing laws, concealed-carry permit laws, zero-
> tolerance laws, and various combinations of firearm laws. Most
> Americans who haven't tried to buy a gun lately are blissfully
> unaware of just how many laws there are. In Washington, D.C., for
> example, it's impossible for a regular citizen to legally own a
> firearm (although criminals seem to have no problem getting
> one). In other cities the legal hoops a gun buyer must jump through
> are almost as much a barrier to ownership as an outright ban.
>
> One would think that at least some good would come from all these
> laws. Researchers should be able to prove that the laws prevent at
> least a few murders, rapes, and robberies. Amazingly, they can't. And
> even more amazingly, they have admitted that they can't.
>
> But what about the violent crimes that gun-control laws have allowed
> by preventing victims from defending themselves? This well-known
> downside to gun-control laws keeps showing itself over and over
> again. For example, during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, frantic
> Angelenos rushed to gun stores to arm themselves against marauding
> thugs. Many were outraged to discover California's 15-day waiting
> period for buying a gun.
>
> A woman stalked by a homicidal ex-husband is left completely
> vulnerable by waiting-period laws. These supposedly provide a
> "cooling off" period for impulsive people who would buy a gun and in
> the heat of passion, commit a crime with it. Such a patronizing law
> cruelly imperils a stalked woman, who desperately needs the
> protection that only a firearm can give her.
>
> And looking at Washington, D.C.'s reputation as the violent-crime
> capital, how could we think that its gun ban law was ever worth
> anything? Does anyone really believe that justice is served by
> disarming good citizens when violent criminals so obviously ignore
> the ban? Barring gun ownership by good people is worse than useless.
> It perverts justice by enabling violent felons while turning into
> outlaws people who dare to own a gun for legitimate self-protection.
>
> America has laws that ban handguns. We have laws that ban big,
> expensive guns and other laws that ban small, cheap guns. We have
> laws that condemn some guns as illegal simply on the basis of their
> appearance. Other laws force average people to be fingerprinted to
> carry a firearm for self-protection, even though years of experience
> show such demeaning measures to be unnecessary.
>
> The laws are so numerous and so dauntingly complex that in some cases
> even law enforcement authorities can't figure out what they mean.
> Such a confusing web of legal traps can easily ensnare an honest
> citizen.
>
> In all, America has 20,000 laws that endanger, humiliate,
> criminalize, or otherwise burden good citizens who exercise their
> constitutional right to own a gun. Now the CDC, a government agency
> not known for its friendliness to gun owners, reports that it cannot
> find any evidence that the laws are effective.
>
> We should take warning from the closing comments of the CDC task
> force's report. They are reminiscent of the agency's glory days of
> gun-control advocacy. America is described as an "outlier" in gun-
> crime rates among industrialized nations. The report insists
> "research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as
> one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and
> firearms injury." In other words, keep researching until we find the
> conclusion we prefer  guns are bad and they should be banned.
>
> Liberal reformers who would curb the freedom of others are obliged to
> prove the efficacy of gun-control laws. They have failed to do so.
> Gun owners have always known that gun-control laws aimed at them
> instead of criminals are futile and unjust. Now that everybody else
> is finally getting it, perhaps it's time for a moratorium on new gun
> laws.
>
>  Timothy Wheeler, M.D. is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun
> Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wheeler200310220911.asp
>