http://www.sunspot.net/features/health/ats-ap_health14oct03,0,5358078.story?coll=sns-health-headlinesATLANTA -- A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws -- including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons -- found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.
The CDC, which is has put out anti-gun messages in the past, is quick to say that the results are inconclusive. But it does admit that there is no proof they work (why? because they don't)
And here is the really funny part:
A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ...."It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq."
Hmm...Since when is roughly 20,000 considered "so few"?
A study for the Department of Justice concluded, "(A)dvocates of stricter weapons regulations sometimes assert that the United States is virtually the only advanced civilized nation in the world that exercises no controls over the civilian ownership, possession, or use of firearms. In fact, there are about 20,000 firearms laws of one sort or another already on the books." (James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi and Kathleen Daly, Under the Gun, Aldine de Gruyter, 1983)
But, I suppose I should stop being suprised when a balanced review of the facts show that gun laws don't work.
A Library of Congress study concluded, "it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes." (Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998)
* The latter two quotes found at the NRA/ILA website.
