Violence Policy Center Contradicts Gore

USP45

New member
Violence Policy Center Contradicts Gore

Dr. Michael S. Brown
Sept. 25, 2000


Much has been made of Al Gore's decision to
downplay the gun control issue in the final weeks
before the election. This could be a cold political
calculation involving the number of gun owners
who are angered by his position, but it may have
resulted from an ideological split in the anti-gun
lobby.

The Violence Policy Center is one of the most
virulent anti-gun organizations in existence and
VPC Director Josh Sugarmann is one of the most
talented propagandists of our time. He is credited
with taking the rarely used and illegitimate term
"assault weapon" and turning it into a household
word to bash gun rights. You may recall some of
his other inventions, such as calling gun shows:
"Tupperware parties for criminals" and labeling
Eddie Eagle as: "Joe Camel with feathers".

His attitude is demonstrated by cynical quotes
like this one from Newsweek: "Americans are
ready to hate somebody - and it's going to be the
gun industry."

He is not afraid to exploit ignorance and mislead
the public, as shown in this quote from a VPC
study: "Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing
bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are a
new topic. The weapons' menacing looks,
coupled with the public's confusion over fully
automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic
assault weapons-anything that looks like a
machine gun is assumed to be a machine
gun-can only increase the chance of public
support for restrictions on these weapons."

Sugarmann and his small team of associates are
funded by enormous grants from liberal
foundations. They have repaid their benefactors
many times over by providing ammunition to the
Clinton-Gore camp and various anti-gun groups.
Their infamous "studies" are well known for
twisting facts to create highly memorable sound
bites that are perfect for political use and have
caused untold damage to gun rights.

Given this partisan reputation, observers of the
gun control debate were surprised when the VPC
recently published one of their studies that
contradicts the position of the Clinton-Gore
Democrats and their closely associated anti-gun
organizations.

The backbone of the Democrats' anti-gun
platform is a call for licensing of gun owners and
registration of guns. The VPC now says, in effect,
that this plan is totally useless.

The study, which is available on the VPC web
site, is titled: "Handgun Licensing and
Registration - What it Can and Cannot Do". It
lays out a list of reasons why licensing and
registration simply will not work in this country.
The example of the Canadian Gun Registry is
used to show the "staggering" costs that would
turn a federal licensing and registration scheme
into a "money pit". They also make the excellent
points that gun laws "can't control human
nature" and that attempting to pass such
legislation would be "a political nightmare".

VPC addressed the tired old comparison with
licensing drivers in this way: "Systems to license
drivers have been in place since 1903. Yet they
had little or no bearing on the sharp reductions
we have seen in motor vehicle death and injury
over the last 30 years."

Their conclusion: "A careful analysis of the
potential for licensing and registration to
significantly reduce gun death and injury --
recognizing the true nature of firearms violence in
the United States -- reveals that its effect would
be limited. For such limited gain, implementation
of a new licensing and registration system would
exact extremely high financial and political
costs."

It is unlikely that the VPC suddenly had a change
of heart and decided that honesty is the best
policy. The study still contains many errors and
myths popular with gun haters. Their real point is
that guns must be eliminated, not controlled.
Exactly how such draconian laws could be
enforced effectively and how they would reduce
crime or suicide is not really examined.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the VPC is one
of their favorite think tanks and this new position
is very much at odds with the platform of the
Democratic Party and their surrogates such as the
Million Mom March, who are constantly saying
"We don't want to take your guns away."

This may be one reason why the Gore campaign
has chosen to de-emphasize the gun issue so late
in the election process. They must be angry and
embarrassed that their gun control position has
been blatantly contradicted by one of their closest
and most influential allies.

By Dr. Michael S. Brown

Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and
member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws. He
may be reached at rkba2000@home.com.

References:

"Americans are ready to hate somebody, and it's
going to be the gun industry." ---Josh
Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, May
16, 1994 issue of Newsweek Magazine.

"The word 'hate' is a very carefully chosen word.
There's got to be a real sense of revulsion and
disgust. People are looking for someone to blame,
someone who's the cause of their problems, and
it should be the gun industry." - Josh Sugarmann
of the Violence Policy Center, June 13, 1994
issue of The New American Magazine.

Violence Policy Center Handgun Licensing and
Registration - What it Can and Cannot Do -
2000 http://vpc.org/studies/lnrcont.htm

VPC- Assault Weapons and Accessories in
America - 1998
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl

----------------------------
Dr. Michael S. Brown - Director
Second Amendment Advocates of SW
Washington
(360) 574-2675
rkba2000@home.com

------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Handgun Licensing and Registration: What it Can and Cannot Do

Introduction

Historically, proposals for new gun control laws have almost always targeted the gun owner. Rarely have measures focused upstream, "behind the gun store counter," on the industry and its
products. Most recently, increased public attention has focused on the idea of registering handguns and licensing their owners. Yet what can licensing and registration reasonably be expected to
accomplish? In-depth analysis reveals that there are serious questions concerning such systems that have not yet been adequately explored.

The goal of this study is to explore the arguments made in favor of licensing and registration and to determine what effect such an approach could have on gun death and injury in America.
Before beginning this analysis, it is essential to understand current federal law regarding firearm sale and possession in the United States.

Section Four: A Better Way

When evaluating a licensing and registration proposal it is important to understand and consider exactly what licensing and registration can add to the laws already on the books. Passage of a
licensing system simply based on the existing prohibitions on gun ownership for persons in specific proscribed categories (such as individuals with felonies or misdemeanor domestic violence
convictions, illegal aliens, persons subject to a restraining order, etc.) would for the most part serve only as an expensive duplication of the function already served by the National Instant Check
System under the Brady Law.

The Violence Policy Center believes that a more efficient approach would be to:

expand the current Brady background check to include all gun sales- including private sales between individuals, as well as sales at gun shows and over the Internet-by requiring that all
gun sales be conducted through a federally licensed firearms dealer;

expand the current list of persons prohibited from possessing firearms to include those with convictions for violent misdemeanors; and,

expand the existing federal registration system that currently applies to machine guns, silencers, and other weapons covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 to include
handguns.

The VPC calls this alternative approach "Building on Brady." It draws on the strengths of the 1993 Brady Law and the existing National Firearms Act registry while avoiding the expense and
bureaucracy attendant with traditional licensing and registration proposals. It also incorporates the findings of important new research regarding gun possession by individuals with criminal
convictions for violent misdemeanors. A 1998 study published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) found that handgun purchasers with previous misdemeanor convictions
were 7.5 times as likely to be charged with new crimes after buying their guns as were handgun buyers with no prior criminal record. Handgun buyers with more than one conviction for a violent
misdemeanor were 15 times as likely to be charged with murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault as were those with no prior criminal history.24 Currently, federal law only prohibits firearms
possession by those with prior misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence.


------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Back
Top