Response to "Nationwide Gun Control"

Montgomery County Journal Viewpoint Article

I guess my viewpoint article "Wake Up Maryland and realize gun control fails" must have woken up Oren Stembel, but when he wrote "What this country needs is nationwide gun control," he must have been a little groggy. We haven't heard much from him since I tried to explain the basic notion that, yes, a society actually does need laws, but that those laws must be enforced to be effective. Laws alone will only restrict law abiding citizens who do not commit violent crime in the first place. Enforcing the law is the only way to either deter or prevent violent criminals from committing crime. Unfortunately, Maryland's judges and legislators lack the courage to keep violent criminals behind bars. Maryland's judges routinely release violent criminals back on our streets early, thus prompting some Maryland legislators like Del. Marilyn Goldwater to call for "Truth in sentencing" laws. Unfortunately, many other Maryland legislators in liberal districts continue to wage war on law abiding gun owners because they know it will get them votes and create the illusion that they really care about Maryland's awful crime rates.

There are many examples where gun control has failed, including the most obvious example, Washington DC. After 25 years of complete handgun prohibition, DC remains one of the most violent cities in our nation, yet Stembel asks, "Why gun zealots still trot out this argument, I don't know?" It is because we want to see gun control zealots squirm when they try to explain why criminals choose to commit more crime in DC and Maryland, but not in nearby Virginia. Virginia is not waiting for "nationwide gun control" to solve its crime problems. They actually enforce the law, and it works. Virginia's murder rate (5.9) is about three fourths that of Maryland's, and about one eighth that of DC's. Why the otherwise intelligent citizens of Maryland and DC allow their governments to fail repeatedly on crime control is beyond me.

Now on to Australia, where Stembel implies that the Aussi's gun control laws deserve a "silver medal" while Dirlik claims they are a "documented failure." Let's look at all the facts, and we'll see that Australia's gun control laws have indeed been a "documented failure."

From 1989 up to and including 1996, the year when the Australian government confiscated and destroyed the 640,000 semi automatic rifles and shotguns taken from law abiding citizens, the murder rate in Australia, defined as the number of murders per 100,000 residents, remained relatively flat, fluctuating between 1.9 and 2.0. In 1995, the year before the confiscation, the murder rate was 1.9. In 1996, the year when 35 people were gunned down by a mad man in Port Arthur thus prompting the gun confiscation, the murder rate was 2.0. In 1997, immediately after the massive destruction of firearms, the murder rate dropped to 1.7, a 15% reduction at best. Not bad for the first year, but what happened in the next three years? In 1998, murder rate stayed at 1.7, in 1999 murder rate crept up to 1.8, and in 2000, it remained at 1.8.

So four years after confiscating over $100,000,000 of property from honest Australian citizens, Australia's murder rate dropped at most 10%. Note that during most of the 1990's, their murder rate fluctuated about 5% anyway. Their murder rate was 1.9 the year before the confiscation, five years later, it was 1.8. Accounting for normal statistical fluctuations, gun control had at best a marginal impact on murder rates in Australia.

Unlike Olympic figure skating, numbers aren't subjective, and the Aussi gun confiscation won't get a "silver medal" from a competent and honest judge who really cares about reducing crime. Numbers don't lie. Read 'em and weep at the Australian Government's own Institute of Criminology web site:

Institute of Criminology

Want to look at other Aussi crime numbers and hope for a bronze? Look at the 1998 numbers, two years after the gun confiscation: armed robbery up 73%, unarmed robbery up 27%, assault up 20%, and unlawful entry up 8%. Again, read 'em and weep at http://www.ssaa.org.au, the web site of the Australian counterpart to the NRA. The data are compiled and graphed there using official government crime data. Looking at these graphs, also note that, before and after the confiscation, about 30% or less of these crimes even involve firearms to begin with.

So suppose gun control actually did reduce the murder rate 10,20, or even 30% in Australia. What would Mr. Stembel, and Senators Currie and Van Hollen suggest the Aussis do about the remaining 90, 80, or 70% of their murders? There are no more legal guns left to confiscate! Stembel seems to be happy that in the year 2000, only about 20% of Australia's 302 murders involved a firearm.

Those are his numbers taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Doesn't he care about the remaining 80% of those murders which did not involve a firearm? How many of those victims were stabbed, strangled or beaten to death by a predator who knew his victim was weak and unarmed? How many of those victims could have defended themselves if only their government would have let them? And how many of those predators would have thought twice if they thought their victim might be armed with a gun? MCSM is doing our part to make sure we never have to ask those questions here in America.

And before I forget, Mr. Stembel derided five "fine Southern States where gun laws are an anathema." Stembel himself lists their murder rates as follows: Texas (5.9), Georgia (8.0), Alabama (7.4), Mississippi (9.0), and Louisiana (12.5). I hope Mr. Stembel also noticed that three of those five "fine Southern States" have a better murder rate than our beloved Maryland, which, despite its restrictive gun laws, has a murder rate of 8.1. This year, Maryland moved to #3, up from #4 in previous years. Yes siree, us Marylanders should be grateful for those two other Southern states, Louisiana, and Mississippi, because if it weren't for them, Maryland would be tops, #1 in murder for the entire nation! Maryland, my Maryland!

Finally, Stembel suggests I'm being disingenuous because I compared Vermont's murder rate (1.5) to that of New Jersey's (3.4). Recall that Vermont doesn't even require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, while New Jersey has very restrictive gun laws. He claims the difference is because Vermont is 75% rural while the Garden State is "nearly 100% metropolitan." I don't know where his numbers came from, but having driven the back roads to the Jersey shore and up towards the Poconos, I cannot believe that New Jersey, although certainly more populous, is "nearly 100% metropolitan." Incidentally, why doesn't New Jersey need "nationwide gun control" to solve its crime problems? Woops, I forgot. Logic doesn't apply here.

England also had a recent massive gun confiscation. Want to discuss their crime rates next? I dare you.

Steve Dirlik is a member and spokesman for the Montgomery Citizens for a Safer Maryland, a grass roots organization that and advocates better law enforcement, and responsible gun ownership over gun control as ways to reduce violent crime.

Steve Dirlik
10219 Day Ave
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301.962.1780