Banning Guns Won't Stop Terrorism

Josey1

Banning Guns Won't Stop TerrorismMarch 18, 2002 John R. Lott Jr. How much should we compromise freedom to combat the threat of terrorism?In Israel, although checkpoints and searches are common, Israelis have found that trusting their citizens is often the most important line of defense. They have learned only too painfully that the police and military simply can't be there all the time. As Israel's national police chief said earlier this month, "There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them while they were in progress." In just the last couple of weeks, Israeli citizens have used guns to stop a bombing in a grocery story and a machine-gun attack at a restaurant.Yet, even though the largest mass killing in American history was committed just six months ago without one gun or one bullet, some think the threat of terrorism requires more gun control.Today at state Senate hearings in Connecticut, Democratic gubernatorial candidate and Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen is scheduled to push legislation requiring the Department of Public Safety to annually determine what firearms are suitable for hunting or self-defense and then essentially ban the rest.Although the definition of what makes a gun "suitable" will vary over time with who runs the department, Jepsen and other supporters seem intent on using the law to immediately ban .50-caliber guns. The guns labeled by some politicians as "a favorite of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network" are deemed too dangerous for Americans to own.Yet, no one exactly explains how they draw this link between those guns and terrorism. During the 1980s, when Afghanistan "freedom fighters" were battling the Soviets who had invaded their country, it was the U.S. government that arranged the sale of 25 of these rifles to Afghanis. There is no evidence that any more of these guns were ever sold. Of course, thousands of other guns were provided, as well as missiles. But based solely on the evidence that our government sold 25 of these particular guns to Afghan fighters, gun-control organizations and politicians are willing to label .50-caliber guns as a favorite of bin Laden's.Such rifles are big, heavy guns, weighing at least at 30 pounds and using a 29-inch barrel. They are also relatively expensive. Models that hold one bullet at a time run nearly $3,000. Semiautomatic versions cost around $7,000. They are purchased by wealthy target-shooters and big-game hunters. Needless to say, criminals don't use them. Indeed, not one has ever been implicated in a murder or a wounding in the United States. One gun-control organization claims that three possible crimes may have been committed with these guns, but even this discussion is filled with errors.Other than the attempt to link .50-caliber rifles with terrorists, the decision to demonize these particular guns and not .475-caliber hunting rifles is arbitrary. The difference in width for these bullets is a trivial .025 inches. What's next? .45-caliber pistols?Labels are unfortunately very important in the gun-control debate. For example, people's fears got stirred up about so-called "plastic" guns when Glocks first started being sold in the United States. During the hysteria over "plastic" guns in the mid-1980s, Glocks were labeled by gun controllers as "terrorist specials," and fears were raised about terrorists getting them through airport metal detectors.Of course, no guns have ever been produced without metal, nor is there any evidence that such guns can be made. Glocks, which are now very popular with police because of their lightweight plastic frame, contain more than a pound of metal. Unfortunately, instead of calls for more gun control, the reverse is needed.John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-lott0318.artmar18.story?coll=hc%2