Gun Control: Rebuttal to James Alan Fox

Whenever I breathe even a word about guns in this space or other media outlets, I can expect a rapid-fire barrage of irate e-mails from gun advocates. I’m surprised they can afford so much free time away from keeping their firearms collections well polished.[1]

 

With this introduction, Professor James Alan Fox begins another lament on being under-appreciated by gun owners for his stance on gun rights, conveniently ignoring his own backhanded insult to gun owners by implying that they are too busy fondling their weapons to develop the capacity for social intercourse.

By His Own Criteria

Professor Fox continues:

Guns are not the root cause of our violent society. In fact, the U.S./>/> non-gun homicide rate (3.6 non-gun homicides per 100,000 residents) is double the overall homicide rate in virtually all our kindred nations, including Great Britain/>/>, Canada/>/> and Australia/>/>.[2]

 

He notes that “firearms do make violent attacks far more lethal.”[3] Firearms also make self-defense more lethal and costly to the predator. A previous paper noted the accelerated drop in the rate of rape in right-to-carry states 1995-2004.[4] Further corroboration comes from the fact that while the U.S./>/> rate of rape dropped 13% between 1995 and 2004, two gun-ban countries saw just the opposite trend since enacting their gun bans: during the same time period, the UK/>/> rate increased 73% and Australia/>/>’s increased 27% (AUS through 2003). Overall, the UK/>/> violent crime rate has increased over 50%, while Australia/>/>’s increased 38%. Canada’s and Britain’s homicide rates have increased 11%, Australia’s fell 26%, but the U.S. murder rate dropped 33% during the same time period.[5] Mauser found that since instituting registration in the early 1990s, Canada/>/>’s violent crime rate is about twice that of the U.S.[6] Meanwhile, the U.S./>/> violent crime rate dropped 32% between 1995 and 2004.[7] A case can be made that arming law-abiding citizens, especially females, makes them safer, whereas Professor Fox offers no data to support his presumption that firearms lead to more violence.

Fox continues: “We register automobiles, and qualify and license drivers; why not do the same with guns and their owners?”[8] Because licensing only hinders ownership among the law-abiding, placing them at risk. In keeping with Professor Fox’s desires, many western European countries already have licensing requirements to own firearms. They also restrict or ban handgun ownership, and do not accept self-defense as an acceptable reason for applying for a firearms license.[9] A 2000 survey found that in Western Europe/>, guns were used in robbery and assault as often as in the United States/>/>, where firearms licensing is not required. It is most interesting to note that while guns were used in only 3% of sexual offenses in the U.S./>/>, they were used in 26% of sexual crimes committed in Western Europe/>, indicating that while gun control effectively disarms law-abiding women, it has no effect on those who prey upon them.[10] Once again, gun control measures––in this case, licensing––touted as crime-fighting tools do not work. Fox fails to support his contention that licensing makes society safer.

Fox continues:

I concur with the need to punish violators. But the usual complaint that we do not prosecute gun crimes is just false. Our prisons are full of offenders who committed violent crimes with firearms.[11]

 

This may be true today, because the Bush administration actually prosecutes those who use guns to commit crime. A previous article noted the Clinton/>/> administration’s weak record on prosecuting federal gun laws and Fox’s association with Clintons/>/>.[12] Fox’s online biographical page states:

Fox often gives lectures and expert testimony, including over one hundred keynote or campus-wide addresses around the country, twelve appearances before the United States Congress, White House meetings with President and Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Gore on youth violence, private briefings to Attorney General Reno on trends in violence, and a presentation for Princess Anne of Great Britain/>/>. He served on President Clinton’s advisory committee on school shootings, and a Department of Education Expert Panel on Safe, Disciplined and Drug-Free Schools. Finally, he is a visiting fellow with the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics specializing in the measurement of homicide trends.[13]

 

With all this stated expertise, why didn’t Fox persuade the Clinton/>/> administration to prosecute more aggressively?

Fox continues:

As I have noted before, the National Rifle Association has recently grown more powerful in manipulating congressional action. My complaint is not so much with the NRA (which is entitled to its position), but with members of Congress who capitulate to its pressure. Our lawmakers should adopt gun policy based on sound evidence, not based on fear that a potent lobby will hold a gun to their political heads.[14]

 

Sound evidence seems to be what is directing federal “gun policy” these days. The violent crime rate dropped 33% between 1992 and 2000, while the homicide rate dropped 41%, rape decreased 25%, robbery decreased 45%, and aggravated assault decreased 27%.[15] In Weapon Use and Violent Crime, Department of Justice statistician Craig Perkins notes: “From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.”[16] Considering that between 1992 and 1999 the ATF recorded an average annual sale of nearly 5.5 million firearms, including nearly 2.4 million handguns, it is impossible to support any claim that firearms are some sort of causative factor in violent crime.[17] Fox fails again to provide any supporting evidence that there is any need for more gun control, or that such laws would have any beneficial effect on crime.

Dost Thou Protest Too Much?

Fox asks: “Aside from some paranoid view of government intrusion, what really is the danger of firearms registration or of background checks on all gun sales?”[18]

Let us examine Fox’s allegation of paranoia. Oxford defines paranoia as: “A mental illness characterized by delusions of persecutions, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance.”[19]

First, let’s address “delusions of persecutions.” In New Orleans/>/> after Hurricane Katrina, there was mass confiscation of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens, leaving them unable to defend their property against violent predators.[20] In England/>/> and Australia/>/>, registration preceded confiscation. It’s not delusional if it’s true.

Second: unwarranted jealousy. For all his lectures, expert testimony, public speaking, and appearances before Congress, it appears Fox’s heyday as a policymaker reached its zenith during the Clinton/>/> administration. Now his public influence has waned, he falls back on complaining societal problems of violence can be laid at the door of the National Rifle Association. Could the real reason for the Professor’s ire be that Congress is not following his recommendations?

Next: exaggerated self-importance. This lack of attention is insufficient for one who has all the above credentials and enjoys the being lauded as the “Dean of Death.” (His bio web site at Northeastern/> University/>/> proclaims: “Click to watch video explaining the ‘Dean of Death’ moniker.”[21])  

Conclusion

Professor Fox’s maundering is based upon the unproven assumption that more gun control will lead to less violence. He believes that being a university professor entitles him to dictate public policy, and our request for supporting statistics is irrelevant because we are not part of his Ivory Tower clique. He uses his command of the English language to create subtle innuendos to label us gun-fetishists and paranoids, and to imply that we have taken the government hostage like so many terrorists.

It’s easy to lose touch with reality when one gets to live life in a protected enclave with a tenured position from which one can espouse fanciful ideologies without impacting job security. Regardless of the damage inflicted on regular people for implementing his recommendations, by nature of his gentrified position it’s unlikely the “Dean of Death” will be suffering the consequences of his beliefs.

Bio

Howard Nemerov publishes with ChronWatch, News Busters and other sites, and is a frequent guest on NRA News. He can be reached at HNemerov [at sign] Netvista.net.

 

Endnotes