Hindsight from The New Gun Week
April 20, 2000Gun Control Support Muffled; The Browbeating Continues
by Joseph P. Tartaro, Executive EditorBill Clinton, Al Gore and other Democrats are determined to make the elections this year a referendum on the right to keep and bear arms.
But Americans are broadly dubious that gun control would substantially reduce gun violence, or that creating new gun laws is a better idea than simply enforcing existing ones-doubts that combine to make the issue something of a political misfire, according to an ABC News/Washington Post telephone poll of 1,083 adults conducted between March 30 and April 2.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans do favor stricter gun laws, a number that's held roughly stable for the last decade, according to the poll report.
But people are not making the issue a top priority: Gun control ranks ninth of 15 issues they call "very important" in their presidential vote. The reason, the poll suggests, is that many people don't think such laws will deliver results. Just a quarter think stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence "a lot," down a tad from 30% last fall. And nearly half, 48%, don't think such laws would have any effect on gun violence at all.
Majority View
Indeed, 53% say the best way to reduce gun violence is simply to enforce the laws already in place. Forty percent favor creating new, stricter laws, or both.
There are some differences among groups. Republicans, gunowners and men heavily favor enforcing existing laws rather than passing new ones, while Democrats, non-gunowners and women are divided about evenly on the question.
Despite these doubts, 64% of Americans do favor stricter gun laws, and just under half, 49%, feel that way "strongly." Support is much higher among non-gunowners than gunowners; among women compared to men; among city dwellers; and among people who call themselves politically liberal.
There are a number of other factors that will affect the influence of this opinion on the congressional and presidential elections this year or on congressional action. Among them: how specific gun control proposals are defined, which was not done in the poll report; the importance of other issues which voters consider more pressing; which groups demonstrate the greatest intensity on this issue, and how the groups are targeted by candidates.
The percentages of those who favor stricter gun control by different breakdowns, as defined in this poll, include: Men 51%; Women 76%; Conservatives 46%; Liberals 77%; Gun households 49%; Non-gun households 76%; Rural Areas 57%, and Large Cities 72%.
Partisanship is the biggest divider: Just 44% of Republicans support gun control, compared to 81% of Democrats. Those who said they were Independents were 64% in favor.
The presidential candidates mirror this difference in the parties. Democrat Al Gore has called for a host of new laws to control gun violence, while Republican George W. Bush has urged stronger enforcement of existing laws.
But Americans do not show much of a preference for either candidate on the issue. Asked whom they trust more to handle gun control, 45% say Bush, 41% Gore. (Gore has lost ground here: In March, he led Bush by 11 points on this issue.)
Less than half of Americans, 44%, say the National Rifle Association has too much influence over gun control laws, while 32% say it has the right amount of influence. Only 18% believe the NRA's influence is too little.
Despite the recently publicized clash between the NRA and the White House, these numbers have remained fairly constant since 1993. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the NRA has too much influence, as are non-gunowners, women and better-educated Americans.
A total of 43% of Americans say they have a gun in their household. Gun ownership is higher among men, whites, Republicans and in rural areas.
More States Join 'Probe'
Meanwhile, the anti-gunners continue to abuse the legal process.
Three more states have joined an antitrust probe of the US gun industry to see if companies are conspiring to stop Smith & Wesson from "making its guns safer," Connecticut's attorney general said on April 5.
"There are three additional states-Massachusetts, Florida, and California-joining Connecticut, Maryland and New York," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who is spearheading the investigation.
And more states may join soon, Blumenthal told Reuters news service.
Springfield, MA-based Smith & Wesson, a unit of British firm Tomkins plc, angered some gun advocates in March when it unilaterally agreed to a far-reaching gun control package with officials of the federal government and some states. In exchange, S&W received a promise that it would not be named in a threatened federal suit sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and would be dropped from city and county lawsuits that have been filed against the industry. So far, HUD hasn't filed its suit and most of the cities have not dropped S&W from their lawsuits.
The deal, brokered primarily by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, who has major political ambitions, was a stick-and-carrot publicity scheme to get around Congress and help Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign. Cuomo and his allies had hoped that the deal with S&W would have a domino effect throughout the industry, but company after company has refused to join the agreement. And they have failed to respond to the collusive carrot as Cuomo, Blumenthal and others conspire to get cities to agree to buy only from S&W and companies that also agree to the deal. As far as they are concerned, the need to provide the best guns for police or requirements for competitive bidding be damned. The politicians don't care.
What is amazing, and has been largely ignored by the general media, is that after conspiring to restrain trade and regulate commerce by browbeating the gun industry without concurrence from Congress, the hypocrites-in-charge are now accusing the gun industry of conspiring to restrain trade.
"Exercising corporate responsibility should not be reason for your competitors to put a bullseye on your back," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, with a straight face. Lockyer has been pasting bullseyes on the backs of gunowners, gun show promoters and gun manufacturers since he took office.
Lott's Bottom Line
While the AGs are making headlines, John R. Lott Jr., a senior research scholar at the Yale University Law School and the author of More Guns, Less Crime, told National Review associate editor Kathryn Jean Lopez, what he thought about the new regs promulgated in Massachusetts.
National Review asked: "To a New York Times reporter, one official from the Massachusetts attorney general's office said the new rules that went into effect in Massachusetts . . . 'mark the sharpest blow yet to the gun industry.' How pernicious are these rules? Do you see states lining up to follow suit?"
Lott's reply: "It's sad that they phrase it in that way, as a 'blow to the gun industry.' The bottom line should be not whether we strike a blow against the gun industry, but what impact we are going to be having on people's safety. I have real concerns about these rules in Massachusetts. When they decide to essentially ban so-called Saturday night specials, inexpensive guns, like they have here, it is the poor people in high-crime urban areas who aren't going to be able to defend themselves.
"As for the impact this might have on other states, it's interesting to note that these restrictions weren't part of a law that was passed. It was, rather, an attorney general who issued these rules unilaterally. I don't think they could pass. In fact, there have been attempts to pass similar types of safety rules in Massachusetts-and they haven't been successful.
"These rules generally-whether they be effectively banning certain types of guns or mandating 'childproof locks'-will create future problems. There's no such thing as a lock that's impossible to tamper with. I'm concerned that there will be a mandatory 'tamper-proof' lock. Then, at some point in the future, someone will discover that the lock can be tampered with, so there will be legal action against companies that are selling the guns with the locks.
The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager-JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.netAlso, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com