Bathtubs kill more babies than guns do

Regulations have both costs and benefits. Yet, the current debate over gun control ignores this simple point and focuses only on the benefits.

Rules that are passed to solve a problem can sometimes make it worse. Completely ignored are the more than two million times each year that potential victims use guns to stop violent crimes, or that guns are used about five times more frequently to stop crimes than they are used to commit them. No one asks whether it is the law-abiding citizens or criminals who are going to obey these laws and bear the burden of their costs.

Clinton refuses to ever mention that guns save lives. To him the only legitimate cost of new regulations that merits discussion is whether they "inconvenience" hunters. Consider, then, the costs and benefits of Clinton's main proposals:

* Waiting periods. A waiting period may allow people to cool off before they do something that they regret, but people many times are being stalked or threatened and waiting periods can make it difficult for them to quickly obtain a gun for defense. The data suggest that we should be careful before rushing to reinstituting the waiting period that lapsed last year. I have found, in the only research done on this question, that the Brady Law's national waiting periods had no impact on murder or robbery, but slightly increased rape and aggravated assault rates by a few per cent. For two crime categories the major effect of the law was to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get a gun for protection. The risks appear greatest for crimes victimizing women.

* Mandatory gun locks. Clinton claims that gun locks will save lives, particularly those of young children, but this is unlikely to be the case. For example, the Centers for Disease Control state that for children under 10 there were 44 accidental gun deaths in the U.S. in 1996, and this admittedly represents a real cost of gun ownership. Yet, with around 80 million people owning around 240 million guns, the vast majority of gun owners must be extremely careful or such gun accidents would be much more frequent. It is hard to think of any other household item that is anywhere near as common in American homes that has as low of an accidental death rate. Indeed, about twice as many children under 10 die from drowning in bath tubs.

The problem with locked, unloaded guns is that they offer far less protection from intruders, and so requiring locks would likely greatly increase deaths resulting from crime. Misleading people about the risks of guns in the home will harm people's safety in a very real way. If we are going to require locks with guns, wouldn't it make possibly even more sense to require similar regulations for items that take even more young children's lives, such as bath tubs or water buckets?

* New rules for gun shows. The Clinton Administration has provided no evidence that such shows are important in supplying criminals with guns. What's more, it is simply false to claim that the rules for purchasing guns at a gun show are any different from those regarding gun purchases anywhere else. Dealers who sell guns at a show must perform the same background checks and obey all the other rules that they do when they make sales at their stores. Private sales are unregulated whether they occur at a gun show or not.

If, as Mr. Clinton proposes, the government enacts new laws regulating private sales at gun shows, all someone would have to do is walk outside the show and sell the gun there. To regulate private sales, the government would have to register all guns. This is where the discussion will soon be headed, as it is certain that gun control advocates will quickly point to the unenforceability of these new laws. Those who advocate the new rules must know that they are doomed to failure and should be willing to acknowledge openly if their real goal is registration.

Age limits. Mr. Clinton proposes a federal ban on possession of handguns by anyone under 21. Under a 1968 federal law, 21 is already the minimum age to purchase a handgun, but setting the age to possess a handgun is a state matter. While some people between 18 and 21 use guns improperly, others face the risk of crime and would benefit from defending themselves. My own research indicates that laws allowing those between 18 and 21 years of age to carry a concealed handgun reduce violent crimes just as well as those limited to citizens over 21.

What ultimately counts is whether the laws will save lives and prevent injuries and crime. The real tragedy of Mr. Clinton's proposals is that more lives will be lost and more people will face the threat of crime.

Mr Lott Jr is a fellow in law and economics at the University of Chicago School of Lt: He is author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (University of Chicago Press, 1998).

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Jul 2, 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved