Tomas Sowell, an American writer!
This article appeared in the San Antonio Express-News 8/17/99 Pg 7B
with the title, Gun laws equal disarmament
This is from the Jewish World Review 8/13/1999
Shooting the helpless
http://www.jewishworldreview.com
-- WITH ALL THE RACIAL BEAN-COUNTERS around, you might think that someone would have
noticed that the shooting sprees that have shocked the nation this year
have all occurred in white, middle-class settings. Despite the violence in
low-income minority communities, no one seems to burst into schools
in ghettos and barrios to spray the place with bullets.
There may be a reason -- and that reason could tell us something about
the notion that "gun control" laws will curb shooting sprees.
One of the big differences between white, middle-class settings --
whether schools or office buildings -- and inner city schools is that the
former are likely to be unarmed and the latter often have armed guards
on the premises. Start shooting at random in a school in the ghetto or
the barrio, and you are likely to find bullets coming back your way.
In more genteel settings, the shooter is likely to be the only one on the
scene with a gun, at least until the cops arrive. That is usually when the
shooting stops.
What does this tell us? That even supposedly "crazed" gunmen prefer
helpless victims to people who can shoot back.
Yet what conclusion do the media and the politicians draw from these
shooting sprees? That we need to make more law-abiding citizens
helpless through stricter "gun control" laws.
Of course so-called "gun control" laws do not control guns. They control
law-abiding citizens, but not criminals. It is unilateral disarmament.
One of the most ridiculous and irresponsible actions stemming from the
gun-control mind-set was a recent 5 to 1 vote of the San Francisco
school board banning policemen from being armed when they come on
school grounds. Even in politically correct San Francisco, that was too
much. After protests and pressures from the mayor and other city
officials, the board backed down.
However, the very fact that such an idea could have been taken
seriously by adults in responsible positions is yet another sign that gun
control is not about facts or consequences. It is about ideology and
political posturing. Ringing calls for more gun control laws go out from
the Clinton administration, which has done practically nothing to
prosecute violators of existing gun laws. The mass media are not the
least bit interested in empirical studies that have been done on the
actual consequences of having citizens empowered to carry concealed
weapons. Gun control is a crusade -- and crusaders don't stop to look at
statistics.
The largest and most thorough study of the effect of laws which readily
grant permits to law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons was
done at the University of Chicago. Its title -- "More Guns, Less Crime" --
summarizes what it found in studies of communities all across the
United States.
Back in the 1980s another survey, by professors at the University of
Massachusetts, studied criminals behind bars in ten states. The great
majority of these criminals agreed that it is smart to try to find out if a
potential victim is armed and that the fear of being shot is one reason
for not committing burglary when someone is at home.
More than four-fifths of them also agreed that getting a gun is not a
serious problem for them. Most of these criminals who were behind bars
for a gun-related crime said that they can get a gun the very day they
get out of prison -- and half admitted that they planned to.
All the political dust kicked up about regulating gun shows has nothing
to do with the safety of the public and everything to do with scoring
points. Does anyone seriously believe that professional criminals
depend on gun shows, when there are so many other places where guns
are readily available year around?
Limiting each person to purchasing one gun per month is more political
posturing. This may stop a gun collector who wants to buy a matched
pair of derringers used by some 19th century dandy, but it is not going
to stop some hoodlum who wants to hold up a gas station or fast-food
place today. Most real criminals do not use the "Saturday night
specials" that get liberal gun-controllers frothing at the mouth.
Inexpensive guns like this are used by low-income people for
self-protection.
Stripping them of that protection is the ultimate in "making a
statement" at the expense of other people's lives.
------------------------------
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html
Thomas Sowell Archives; ©1999, Creators Syndicate
Thomas Sowell is an author and scholar-in-residence at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University. His column is distributed by Creators
Syndicate.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 20, 1999).]
This article appeared in the San Antonio Express-News 8/17/99 Pg 7B
with the title, Gun laws equal disarmament
This is from the Jewish World Review 8/13/1999
Shooting the helpless
http://www.jewishworldreview.com
-- WITH ALL THE RACIAL BEAN-COUNTERS around, you might think that someone would have
noticed that the shooting sprees that have shocked the nation this year
have all occurred in white, middle-class settings. Despite the violence in
low-income minority communities, no one seems to burst into schools
in ghettos and barrios to spray the place with bullets.
There may be a reason -- and that reason could tell us something about
the notion that "gun control" laws will curb shooting sprees.
One of the big differences between white, middle-class settings --
whether schools or office buildings -- and inner city schools is that the
former are likely to be unarmed and the latter often have armed guards
on the premises. Start shooting at random in a school in the ghetto or
the barrio, and you are likely to find bullets coming back your way.
In more genteel settings, the shooter is likely to be the only one on the
scene with a gun, at least until the cops arrive. That is usually when the
shooting stops.
What does this tell us? That even supposedly "crazed" gunmen prefer
helpless victims to people who can shoot back.
Yet what conclusion do the media and the politicians draw from these
shooting sprees? That we need to make more law-abiding citizens
helpless through stricter "gun control" laws.
Of course so-called "gun control" laws do not control guns. They control
law-abiding citizens, but not criminals. It is unilateral disarmament.
One of the most ridiculous and irresponsible actions stemming from the
gun-control mind-set was a recent 5 to 1 vote of the San Francisco
school board banning policemen from being armed when they come on
school grounds. Even in politically correct San Francisco, that was too
much. After protests and pressures from the mayor and other city
officials, the board backed down.
However, the very fact that such an idea could have been taken
seriously by adults in responsible positions is yet another sign that gun
control is not about facts or consequences. It is about ideology and
political posturing. Ringing calls for more gun control laws go out from
the Clinton administration, which has done practically nothing to
prosecute violators of existing gun laws. The mass media are not the
least bit interested in empirical studies that have been done on the
actual consequences of having citizens empowered to carry concealed
weapons. Gun control is a crusade -- and crusaders don't stop to look at
statistics.
The largest and most thorough study of the effect of laws which readily
grant permits to law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons was
done at the University of Chicago. Its title -- "More Guns, Less Crime" --
summarizes what it found in studies of communities all across the
United States.
Back in the 1980s another survey, by professors at the University of
Massachusetts, studied criminals behind bars in ten states. The great
majority of these criminals agreed that it is smart to try to find out if a
potential victim is armed and that the fear of being shot is one reason
for not committing burglary when someone is at home.
More than four-fifths of them also agreed that getting a gun is not a
serious problem for them. Most of these criminals who were behind bars
for a gun-related crime said that they can get a gun the very day they
get out of prison -- and half admitted that they planned to.
All the political dust kicked up about regulating gun shows has nothing
to do with the safety of the public and everything to do with scoring
points. Does anyone seriously believe that professional criminals
depend on gun shows, when there are so many other places where guns
are readily available year around?
Limiting each person to purchasing one gun per month is more political
posturing. This may stop a gun collector who wants to buy a matched
pair of derringers used by some 19th century dandy, but it is not going
to stop some hoodlum who wants to hold up a gas station or fast-food
place today. Most real criminals do not use the "Saturday night
specials" that get liberal gun-controllers frothing at the mouth.
Inexpensive guns like this are used by low-income people for
self-protection.
Stripping them of that protection is the ultimate in "making a
statement" at the expense of other people's lives.
------------------------------
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html
Thomas Sowell Archives; ©1999, Creators Syndicate
Thomas Sowell is an author and scholar-in-residence at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University. His column is distributed by Creators
Syndicate.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 20, 1999).]