cuchulainn
Member
from the Atlanta Journal Constitution
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1003/23guns.html
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1003/23guns.html
Anti-gun fight needs a U.S. policy
By ERIC GOROVITZ
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a report that confirms what many of us have long known: it's time to stop tinkering at the margins of gun policy and adopt a strong national gun violence prevention strategy.
The report, which reviewed dozens of studies evaluating the impact of various gun laws on violence rates, found that "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any" of the laws. The report's authors repeatedly reminded readers that "a finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness but rather as an indicator that additional research is needed." Predictably, pro-gun commentators have ignored this caution and have misrepresented the report as confirming that gun laws do not work.
The CDC report also highlights the need for better gun laws that have a realistic chance of producing measurable results. Most of the laws addressed in the studies reviewed for the CDC report are piecemeal policies that cannot, by themselves, have much discernable effect on the gun violence epidemic.
For example, the federal ban on military assault weapons, adopted in 1994, was doomed to ineffectiveness from the start because it did not properly define the guns Congress intended to eliminate. Soon after the law went into effect, the gun industry began manufacturing "post-ban" weapons identical to those banned except for minor cosmetic changes. The Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle used in last year's Washington-area sniper attacks, for example, is a "post-ban" version of the banned AR15. Is it any surprise the CDC could not determine the effectiveness of a law that the gun industry has worked so hard to thwart?
Similarly, while background checks required by the federal Brady Act have stopped nearly a million prohibited purchasers from buying guns through licensed dealers, the act does not cover the nearly 40 percent of gun sales that occur without the participation of a licensed dealer. Guns are legally sold at gun shows, through the classified ads and over the backyard fence with no background check, no questions asked.
The effectiveness of much stronger state gun laws suffers from the more subtle but equally insidious problem of interstate gun trafficking. As a result of New York's strong gun laws, for example, guns recovered in crimes in New York come from out of state, providing compelling evidence that strong gun laws can prevent criminals from gaining access to guns. However, violence remains a significant problem in New York's cities, because New York's criminals easily arm themselves by exploiting weak gun laws in other states.
For decades, we have responded to gun violence with a national policy of neglect, punctuated only occasionally by the adoption of loophole-ridden laws weakened, at the insistence of the gun lobby, by broad exceptions and limitations. Under these disabling conditions, looking for any significant impact on violence is a quixotic endeavor.
Last month, the CDC released new data showing that gun violence rates are again rising after seven straight years of decline. We cannot say exactly why that is, but we do know that the trend is, once again, moving in the wrong direction. Now is the time to embrace the possibility that a strong, effective national gun policy may be our most effective, though as yet untried, weapon against gun violence.
Eric Gorovitz is policy director for the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.
© 2003 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
