Do you think there should be a more strict federal gun control law?
Answers:
Recently, the National Academy of Science and Department of Justice reviewed more than forty years of research on gun control. Their conclusions can be read one of two ways:
1) The entire body of prior research is so thoroughly horribly flawed that it is useless. This is a statement that there are so few quality research papers that no conclusions can be drawn. There have certainly been many studies performed, though their results do differ from study to study. Whether they differ because of methodology, sample, or design is something researchers should be able to sort out as long as some research is of high quality. The panel does not mention any particular criteria or studies as being better.
2) There is neither consistent nor convincing credible evidence that gun control laws reduce crime rates.
It is possibly of interest that all but one of the members of the panel is known to favor additional restrictions on possession and ownership of firearms.
Given the panels composition, and that it excluded the foremost researcher on this issue, (Dr. Gary Kleck, whose books should be available in your local library), I am inclined to believe the latter (particularly after having read several of his books).
'...Consequently, when medical journal authors report that there is little evidence on a given topic, it may often really mean only that they made no serious effort to find any or chose not to report what they found. For example, in an article published in 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Douglas Weil (research director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, affiliated with Handgun Control) and a colleague claimed that 'there is little published research on the effectiveness of gun laws' (Weil and Knox 1996:60). In fact, there were, at the time this article was published, at least forty-five empirical studies of the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents (Tables 8.4 and 11.1). Weil then proceeded to inaccurately claim that 'with little dissent, these studies are generally supportive of the thesis that well-tailored gun laws can have a beneficial impact' (ibid.:60), when in fact the studies have generally indicated that gun laws, whether 'well-tailored' or not, have no measurable impact on violence rates (Chapter 11; Point Blank;Chapter 10)....' Page 42, Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, (Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1997)
I think the strictest possible Federal gun control is already on the books. But that law remains unenforced. That law is the Second Amendment. The Federal and State governments have studiously ignored it and the courts have been derelict in resolving the issue.
Source(s):
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091241?OpenDocument
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/
