Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns (14 page)

Sounds impressive, except that a review of this study by four researchers, including John Lott, found the results to be based on a data set that included significant errors (for example, it accidentally counted the same county seventy-three times), as well as a significant arrest-rate error that
severely biased the results toward finding a negative effect from right-to-carry laws.
A later addendum to this paper admitted the errors and claimed that the underlying results were still valid. But researchers like John Lott, who routinely confirm the findings of other studies in this field,
disagree, and have not been provided access to the data used to reach these conclusions.

“I have been stunned by the sheer political cowardice of so many politicians in America who seem just terrified of saying anything that the NRA may object to. The NRA has four million members. America has 310 million people living here. I just don’t understand why everybody is so coward[ly] about publicly debating this and
trying to get exactly the measures in place that you’ve [Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal] just suggested.”

—PIERS MORGAN
,
December 20, 2012

“Let’s talk political reality. I don’t have to tell you, the NRA has a lot of clout on Capitol Hill. In the last election cycle, they contributed $20 million to campaigns last year. Fifty percent of the members of the new
Congress have an A-rating from the NRA.”

—CHRIS WALLACE
,
February 3, 2013

It is often hard for gun control advocates to accept that everyone wants the same thing: to save lives and reduce violence. President Obama believes that those “pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists” who oppose his gun control regulations do so “because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves.” That they will do “everything they can to block any commonsense reform” that is necessary “
to protect our communities and our kids.”

I take that not only as a personal insult, but as akin to the president essentially saying that I put ratings and profit above the lives of children. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it’s those kinds of reckless statements that make both sides dig in their heels. After all, I may believe that Obama’s views on guns are dangerous and that his policies endanger public safety, but that’s quite a bit different from accusing him of personally benefiting from the deaths of innocent children.

Obama’s mind-set explains why so many of those “pundits and politicians” on his side of the aisle refuse to accept that there are voters and politicians who oppose more gun control laws. It isn’t because the NRA has bought them off; they don’t buy votes, they invest in politicians who already believe that the right to bear arms is essential to our freedom.

Ironically, one of the best arguments
against
the Piers Morgans and Barack Obamas of the world on this topic comes from Alan Dershowitz, a guy who probably agrees with almost all of their gun control ideas. In response to Morgan’s saying that the
issue is that the NRA wields too much power, Dershowitz disagreed:

I don’t think it’s the NRA power. I think it’s people like us, not the two of us, but Americans who care about guns aren’t doing enough to make our case to the public.

Because we think it’s their issue. We’ve given that issue over to them because they have lobbyists they pay money. But in the end, the people determine the outcome . . . . [W]e have a right to define the America we want to live in and we have the obligation to win politically, to vote for people to put gun control as a high priority.

They [people who support the Second Amendment] put it as a number one priority. We who favor gun control put it as a 16th or 17th priority. So
it’s our fault, not the NRA’s fault.

I knew that Dershowitz and I would find some common ground. He’s right that, as with every controversial issue, it’s ultimately up to the people and the voters to prioritize how much they care about it. Believe me, if this country was really anti-gun, you’d see things change very fast. But that’s just not the case.

There is plenty of polling on this, but for a good example, take a look at the trend in those answering “yes, there should be” to this question that Gallup has been asking Americans since 1959:
Do you think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?

—1959: 60 percent

—1965: 49 percent

—1975: 41 percent

—1988: 37 percent

—1999: 34 percent

—2006: 32 percent

—2009: 28 percent

—2012: 24 percent

What about making it “
illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?” (This question began in 1996).

—1996: 57 percent were for this idea.

—2004: 50 percent

—2012: 44 percent

The problem isn’t the NRA; it’s that the controllists refuse to admit that they themselves are out of step with the American people. And while Piers Morgan points out that the NRA has “only” 4 million members—as if that somehow implies they should not wield the power they do (
for context, the ACLU claims about 500,000 members)—that in no way means that NRA members are the only Americans who want to protect their Second Amendment rights. A recent poll revealed that 68 percent of all Americans—not just gun owners—believe that “the constitutional right to own and carry a gun is as important as other constitutional rights,
such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.” The Bloombergs of the world who live in their ivory castle and travel with armed security simply cannot understand why any of those simple-minded folk out in the heartland might ever want a gun themselves.

Finally, Chris Wallace’s comment about the NRA contributing “$20 million to campaigns last year (2012)” just doesn’t hold up. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA made just over $1 million in donations to specific candidates during the 2012 election cycle.
The top recipients got $9,900.

Perhaps, to give Wallace the benefit of the doubt, he didn’t really mean the money the NRA gave “to campaigns” but the total money they spent on all independent efforts. In that case his number is much closer—but it’s not really fair to claim the NRA is buying politicians when the vast majority of that money never goes to the campaigns. Will the NRA support your reelection if they believe you support them? Of course—but isn’t that the way it should be? The AFL-CIO spent nearly $9 million last election cycle, all in support of Democrats who support them,
or against Republicans who don’t. No one seems to have an issue with that.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
“And when the NRA gets up and says the solution to it is to arm teachers in elementary schools and give kids guns—”

MORGAN:
“—wild west. It’s lunacy.”

DERSHOWITZ:
“
We don’t want to live there.”

You’re right, Alan, we don’t want to live there. Fortunately, we don’t have to because this is a lie.

Dershowitz is a great lawyer—he knows how to mix in just enough truth with his lies to get the jury to bite. But I’m not biting. For anyone interested in the truth, here is what Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, actually said:

Now, the National Rifle Association knows there are millions of qualified active and retired police, active reserve and retired military, security professionals, certified firefighters, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school.

We could deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer relying on the brave men and women in America’s police forces. The budgets—and you all know this—everyone in the country knows this—of our local police departments are strained, and their resources are severely limited, but their dedication and courage is second to none and
they can be deployed right now.

I’m not seeing the part where LaPierre says that we should hand out guns with lunch, but maybe I just missed it. Oh, and Alan, in case you were wondering, putting armed, trained personnel in schools is not exactly a new concept. According to Mo Canady, executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers, this idea was first proposed in the 1950s and was
federally funded by the Clinton administration.

“Armed guards in schools? Hmmmm . . . Oh! That’s why the 2 armed guards that were at Columbine HS that day
were able to prevent the 15 deaths?”

—MICHAEL MOORE
,
December 21, 2012

“
[Columbine] had armed guards and it didn’t stop the tragedy.”

—DENNIS VAN ROEKEL
(president, National Education Association), December 27, 2012

I hear this argument all the time and there are several problems with it. First, the obvious one: you don’t take one data point and dismiss an entire idea because of it—especially if you are serious about keeping kids safe. If you’re going to tell me that the Columbine attack succeeded despite armed guards, you better tell me about the instances that failed because of them. Remember Vice Principal Joel Myrick in Mississippi? He stopped a killer by running
to his car to grab a gun. What if it had been in his office instead? What if Pearl High School had been staffed with an armed cop? We’ll never know—but don’t bring up Columbine unless you’re willing to talk about all of them.

But my main problem with this argument is that it’s really just not true. At least not in the way they try to make it seem. Here’s a condensed version of what really happened that day
according to the Jefferson County, Colorado, Sheriff’s Office:

Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Gardner, a fifteen-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office, was assigned as a “community resource officer” to Columbine High School. He normally ate lunch in the cafeteria with the kids, but on that day, he ate in his car alongside the campus supervisor. The two men were monitoring students in an area called the “smokers’ pit.”

Around 11:23 a.m., a custodian radioed to Gardner, “Neil, I need you in the back lot!” Gardner started his car and pulled out onto the road. Another call, this one over his police radio, followed: “Female down in the south lot of Columbine High School.” Gardner, believing that a girl had been hit by a car, put on his lights and siren and began to make his way toward that parking lot.

As Gardner pulled into the lot he saw kids running, smoke pouring from the school, and he heard several explosions and gunfire. Another message then came over the school radio: “Neil, there’s a shooter in the school.”

Gardner began to get out of his car but was immediately bombarded with gunfire. According to the report: “Eric Harris turned his attention from shooting into the west doors of the high school to the student parking lot and to the deputy.” After firing approximately ten shots his gun jammed and Gardner returned fire. Harris eventually reloaded and began firing again before eventually retreating back into the school. (This exchange may have proved
valuable, as it delayed the killers on their way to the school library, where the bulk of the killing occurred.) Very soon after that, additional backup began to arrive on the scene.

Two things stand out from this report: First, there were not “2 armed guards” at the school that day; there was one. And second, while Michael Moore is technically correct that the guard was “at” Columbine High School, he was not “in” it. To use this as the prime example of why armed guards in schools won’t work is pretty disingenuous.

Unfortunately, many controllists suffer from magical thinking. They believe that banning guns will somehow make them safer, as though laws are all we need to stop criminals. But consider for a second that you felt threatened for some reason and then ask yourself this: would you feel safer with a sign on your front window saying “This house is a gun-free zone” or with an armed guard on call whenever you were home?

If you wouldn’t put this sign on your home, why would anyone think it’s okay to put them in places where young children gather nearly every day?

“Carrying guns on a college campus, for example, is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of in my life. I don’t remember what you were like when you were in college, but I shouldn’t have had a gun when I was in college nor should anybody I knew.
We just don’t need guns every place.”

—MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG
,
December 16, 2012

Currently, once someone qualifies for a permit in a right-to-carry state they can carry a concealed handgun with them virtually anywhere in that state except for a few designated gun-free zones. Prominent among those “protected” areas are universities and schools.

As of the beginning of 2013, five states guaranteed people
the right to carry concealed handguns on university campuses: Colorado, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. Twelve other states, including two large ones, Texas and Florida, are currently engaged in a debate over whether to end their bans on concealed-carry on campus. Twenty-one states leave the decision up to individual schools, though it’s not surprising that
most liberal universities have views similar to Mayor Bloomberg’s.

So, what about those views? Is Bloomberg right? Would armed students and faculty pose a danger to others? Would armed students confuse police and possibly get shot themselves?

Fortunately, we don’t have to guess at the answers since many campuses have allowed concealed-carry for years, especially prior to the major push for gun-free zones back in the early 1990s. According to John Lott, “Back then, in the states that allowed concealed permitted handguns, students and professors frequently carried handguns, and there simply weren’t any problems.”