Unlimited e-mailing
allowed.
I was one of those mothers who forbade her son to play with toy guns.
This did not stop the gunplay. He fashioned guns out of Legos, twigs, Play-
Doh, bologna sandwich crusts. I eventually admitted defeat, opening the door
to an arsenal of Super-Soakers, cap pistols and Nerf dart shooters.
On the issue of real guns, I am immovable. I will never allow one in my
house. I am lucky enough to live in a safe neighborhood. I also know that
thousands of people are killed every year by guns bought for personal
protection, either by accident, suicide or an argument that, because of the
gun's availability, turns deadly. Overall, about 30,000 people die from gun
violence each year in the U.S.
Many would agree with me that, on balance, the world would be better off if
the gun had never been invented. (I know many would disagree, too, and I
expect an onslaught of e-mails telling me so.)
Having said all this, the proposal to ban the possession of handguns in San
Francisco is the kind of impractical, under-researched, righteous gesture
common to college sophomores and San Francisco supervisors.
Supervisor Chris Daly, with the support of four fellow supervisors,
spearheaded the measure that will appear on the next election ballot,
currently scheduled for November. City officials are rightly concerned with
the rise in homicides in San Francisco this year: 85 compared with 70 last
year. Sixty were committed with guns.
* * *
[A ban] Sounds logical. But let's think this through.
California, of which San Francisco is still part, does not allow convicted
felons, drug addicts, or mentally unstable people (as determined by certain
state codes) to possess guns. Guns are also forbidden to those who have
domestic violence convictions or have restraining orders against them.
Prospective handgun buyers in California also must be at least 21 years
old, pass a written test for a Handgun Safety Certificate and complete a
safety demonstration in front of a certified instructor. Buyers are also
required to buy a safety lock for their gun.
I would think most of the folks who buy handguns legally in San Francisco
do so for personal protection. Maybe they own a store in a rough part of town
and have been repeatedly robbed or threatened. Maybe they live in a
neighborhood that has seen a rash of home invasions. People have many reasons
for owning handguns; I respect their right to make those decisions for
themselves.
These are not the people who are of most concern to the San Francisco
supervisors. They are most worried about the people who are committing the
homicides. Who are they? The majority have criminal records. Therefore, they
already are banned from possessing guns. They would not be affected at all by
the new law. Perhaps they would be inconvenienced somewhat; they would have to
go to Oakland or another neighboring city to steal guns from the homes of law-
abiding citizens since San Francisco's law-abiding citizens would no longer
have them. (Why aren't all handguns equipped with internal locks that make
them usable only by the rightful owners? Wouldn't this cut down on a major
source of guns to criminals?)
Two other large cities have beaten San Francisco to the punch on outright
bans. Their experience is instructive.
Washington, D.C., banned handguns in 1976. One study, published in the New
England Journal of Medicine, found that homicide and suicide by firearms
dropped 25 percent from 1976 to 1987. But in the late '80s and early '90s, gun
violence again soared. Many blamed the crack cocaine epidemic. But even as
crack cocaine use subsided, murders with guns continued to plague D.C. The
U.S. Department of Justice found that guns accounted for 80 percent of D.C.'s
homicides between 1985 and 1994.
"It appears that any effect of the ban on gun prevalence was temporary,''
says Philip Cook, a Duke University professor and co-author of "Gun Violence:
The Real Costs.''
The same appears true in Chicago, which banned the sale and acquisition of
handguns in 1982. No one has evaluated the data extensively, but Cook looked
at the percentage of gun-related suicides before and after the ban. (The
percentage of suicides with guns, he said, offers a reasonable proxy for the
prevalence of gun ownership.) He found a slight decline in the first three
years, then a steady rise. Also, the number of black males killed by guns in
Cook County - of which Chicago is part - rose sharply between 1984 and 1998.
Some research suggests that we are looking at a limited picture when we
focus primarily on the availability of guns as the underlying cause of
violence. The Department of Justice found that homicide rates are as likely to
be tied to poverty and unemployment rates as to the prevalence of guns.
Studies also show that significantly enhancing the penalties for using guns
in a crime is effective in reducing gun violence. In 1996 in Boston, for
instance, the police informed gang members that the entire gang would be
charged with a crime if any member was known to have used a gun illegally.
[The Boston approach also worked in Minneapolis when applied in the late
1990's.] Deadly gang violence dropped.
Still, Daly is confident that the gun ban will pass overwhelmingly in San
Francisco.
It probably would. But Daly and the other supervisors are doing the city a
disservice by putting it on the ballot at all. Most citizens don't have the
time or manpower to research and evaluate public-policy ideas. Supervisors do.
They are supposed to do the homework and craft measures that provide smart
solutions to public problems.
Too bad they didn't look more closely at gun-control policies that, while
not as flamboyant and righteous as a ban, have the advantage of practicality
and demonstrated results.
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/23/BAG36AGAFU1.DTL
******************************************
Professor Joseph Olson; J.D.,
LL.M.
Hamline University School of Law
St. Paul,
Minnesota 55104-1284
tel. (651)
523-2142
fax. (651) 523-2236
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
