[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13230-13231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      CONSEQUENCES OF GUN CONTROL

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 16, 1999

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my colleagues read today's 
Washington Times article entitled ``Disarming Good People'' before 
voting on unconstitutional and counter-effective gun legislation. 
Outlined within, are some of the disastrous consequences of enacting 
more gun control. While the lawmakers demand even more restrictions on 
the sale, ownership, and the use of firearms, we currently have the 
highest level of gun control in our Nation's history. Yet only 50 years 
ago, there were no violent incidents in schools like the recent 
tragedy. Instead of rushing to disarm the law-abiding, let us first 
examine the current 20,000 gun laws already on the books for their 
effectiveness.

                         Disarming good people

       Editor's note: The following is an open letter from 287 
     economists, law-school professors and other academics to 
     Congress, regarding gun-control legislation before the House 
     of Representatives. Some but not all of the names of the 
     signatories appear here.
       After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last 
     two years, there is an understandable desire to ``do 
     something.'' Yet, none of the proposed legislation would have 
     prevented the recent violence. The current debate focuses 
     only on the potential benefits from new gun control laws and 
     ignores the fact that these laws can have some very real 
     adverse effects. Good intentions don't necessarily make good 
     laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save 
     lives, prevent injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based 
     upon their supposed benefits while ignoring their costs poses 
     a real threat to people's lives and safety.
       These--gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law-
     abiding citizens and risk making it less likely that good 
     people have guns compared to criminals. Deterrence is 
     important and disarming good people relative to criminals 
     will increase the risk of violent crime. If we really care 
     about saving lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy 
     events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things 
     that never happen because people are able to defend 
     themselves.
       Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of 
     their homes stating, ``This home is a gun-free zone.'' The 
     reason is very simple. Just as we can deter criminals with 
     higher arrest or conviction rates, the fact that would-be 
     victims might be able to defend themselves also deters 
     attacks. Not only do guns allow individuals to defend 
     themselves, they also provide some protection to citizens who 
     choose not to own guns since criminals would not normally 
     know who can defend themselves before they attack.
       The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the 
     importance of deterrence. Police are extremely important at 
     deterring crime, but they simply cannot be everywhere. 
     Individuals also benefit from being able to defend themselves 
     with a gun when they are confronted by a criminal.
       Let us illustrate some of the problems with the current 
     debate.
       The Clinton administration wants to raise the age at which 
     citizens can posses a handgun to 21, and they point to the 
     fact that 18- and 19-year-olds commit gun crimes at the 
     highest rate. Yet, Department of Justice numbers indicate 
     that 18- and 19-year-olds are also the most likely victims of 
     violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery with serious 
     injury, and aggravated assault. The vast majority of those 
     committing crimes in this age group are members of gangs and 
     are already breaking the law by having a gun. This law will 
     primarily apply to law-abiding 18- to-21-year-olds and make 
     it difficult for them to defend themselves.
       Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they 
     also have real costs. Those threatened with harm may not be 
     able to quickly obtain a gun for protection.
       Gun locks may prevent some accidental gun deaths, but they 
     will make it difficult for people to defend themselves from 
     attackers. We believe that the risks of accidental gun 
     deaths, particularly those involving young children, have 
     been greatly exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental 
     gun deaths for children under age 10. This exaggeration risks 
     threatening people's safety if it incorrectly frightens some 
     people from having a gun in their home even though that is 
     actually the safest course of action.
       Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison 
     sentences for adults whose guns are misused by someone under 
     18 and rules limiting the number of guns people can purchase. 
     No evidence has been presented to show that the likely 
     benefits of such proposals will exceed their potential costs.
       With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise 
     Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate 
     whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the 
     problems we currently face. The new legislation is ill-
     advised.
           Sincerely,
       Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. 
     Baird, California State University Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, 
     Boston University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; 
     Michael Block, University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas 
     Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, 
     George Mason University; Colin D. Campbell, Dartmough 
     College; Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington University; 
     Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University; Mark Crain, 
     George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College in 
     Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard 
     Geddes, Fordham University; Lino A. Graglia, University of 
     Texas; John Heineke, Santa Clara University; David Henderson, 
     Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Melvin J. Hinich, 
     University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of 
     Wisconsin-Madison; James Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth 
     N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New York University; Stanley 
     Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis Locay, 
     University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of 
     Chicago; Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John 
     Matsusaka, University of Southern California; Fred McChesney, 
     Cornell University; Jeffrey A. Miron, Boston University; 
     Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary; Craig M. 
     Newark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. Parker, 
     George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; 
     Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B. 
     Rasmussen, St. John's University; Glenn Reynolds, University 
     of Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts, 
     Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; 
     Charles Rowley, George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, 
     University of Chicago; William F. Shughart II, University

[[Page 13231]]

     of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University; Richard 
     Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, 
     University of Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. 
     Ward, University of Illinois; Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd 
     Zywicki, George Mason University.

     

                          ____________________