“Having deprived New Yorkers of the ability to smoke in public and drink large sodas as mayor, Michael Bloomberg has set his sights on a much more profound breach of freedom: Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
“The former mayor has pledged to pump
another $50 million of his own money into the cause. To put this number into
perspective consider this: One man just promised to spend more than 2.5 times
as much as the National Rifle Association on political activities over the next
year. And this doesn’t even take into account the money Bloomberg has spent on public
health and gun research, reported to be in the tens of millions.
“Why? Because ‘the broader epidemic of
gun violence in this country,’ as President Obama referred to it, has become
such a problem that it cries out for radical approaches that ignore the
Constitution. Except here’s the thing: There is no epidemic of gun violence in
the United States. As a matter of fact, gun violence has been steadily decreasing
for years.
“The premise behind gun control is that
it reduces offensive gun use by criminals. The catch is that it also reduces
defensive gun use by law abiding citizens. Whether stricter gun control results
in fewer gun deaths depends on which effect – reducing offensive use or
reducing defensive use – is greater. This means that the gun control question
is an empirical question. The correct answer lies in the data, not in the
impassioned beliefs of a former mayor. And the data have a lot to say on the
topic.
“According
to Gallup,
the percentage of households owning guns was almost the same in 2011 as in
1996. Yet, according to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, firearm homicides declined by over one-third during the same
period. It does appear that something is
causing a dramatic decline in gun deaths, but whatever it is, it isn’t a decline
in gun ownership…
“The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention provide additional data that makes the
story even more interesting. We can split the 48 states that report crime data
(Florida and Alabama do not report) into two groups: those with above-average
and below-average rates of gun ownership.
“The difference in gun ownership across
the two sets of states is significant. In the top-24 states, an average of 48
percent of households reported having access to a firearm. In the bottom-24
states, an average of only 28 percent of households reported having access to a
firearm. If the premise behind gun control were correct, the data should show
markedly higher rates of gun crime among the bottom-24 states than among the
top-24 states.
“So what do the gun violence statistics
look like for these two sets of states? According to FBI
data,
violent crime and property crime rates are statistically identical in the
top-24 states as in the bottom-24 states. That is, with one exception: the
robbery rate. The average robbery rate
is 40 percent lower in the 24 states that have above-average rates of gun
ownership…
“The data here tell two stories,
neither one of which is consistent with the gun control argument. The first is
that more guns do not accompany more violent crime or more property crime. The
second is that more guns accompany markedly fewer robberies.
“What becomes clear as one looks at the
data is that there is no ‘epidemic of gun violence’ in the United States. There
is, simply put, a lot less gun violence now than in past years. More
importantly, there is also no relationship between readily available firearms
and levels of gun violence, which in and of itself seems to indicate that
Bloomberg is literally wasting tens of millions of dollars in his quest to
relegate the Second Amendment to the back burner.
“Still not convinced? On Jan. 23, 2013
in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut, President Obama
issued 23 executive orders addressing firearms in a number of ways. One of
these instructed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ‘to research
the causes and prevention of gun violence.’
“The Institute of Medicine and National
Research Council, to which the CDC gave the research problem, completed the project some months later, but the White
House was not quick to publicize the findings. The reason: The data regarding
gun violence contradicted the beliefs of the gun-banning political class.
“It turns out that the majority of
firearms deaths in the United States from 2000 to 2010 — 61 percent of them —
were suicides. Comparatively, the types of mass shootings that gave rise to the
study in the first place are exceedingly rare. According to the study, mass
shootings (shootings in which four or more individuals are killed by a single
person) result in an average of 20 deaths per year.
“By contrast, there are almost 20,000
gun-related suicides per year. The gun-rights lobby was right after all: We
don’t have a gun problem; we have a mental health problem…
“Supporters of gun rights have also
repeatedly said that guns are necessary for self-protection. The study confirmed
this as well, stating, ‘Almost all national survey estimates indicate that
defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by
criminals.’
“More striking than
this, the study concluded that those who defend themselves with firearms are
considerably less likely to be injured or killed than those who do not.
“Michael Bloomberg, it seems, is
wasting his money, and a lot of it at that. Unlike him, though, we recognize
his right to do with his money as he wishes. He might consider, just this once,
listening to the data. Imagine what real good he could actually do by
giving that $50 million in support of mental health care.”
from Michael Bloomberg Shoots 50 Million Blanks on Gun Control by James Harrigan and Antony Davies
Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University. James R. Harrigan is a fellow of the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.
For further reading on Bloomberg, Click Here
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.