|
Abstract
|
In the past few months, widely televised tragedies in France, Germany, and Switzerland have spurred politicians to introduce changes in their countries' already strict gun laws to make them even more restrictive. Perhaps you remember the headlines? A depressed student in Germany ran amok and killed several people in his school after he'd been expelled. In both France and Switzerland, angry individuals have stormed into local councils and began shooting legislators indiscriminately.
This is not a new story. We've seen this show before. First, there is a horrible event, say a disturbed student shoots people in a school, or a maniac goes on a rampage in a public place. Media coverage is intense for a few weeks. "Experts" on television wring their hands in concern about the danger of "gun violence." Then the government feels it must do something to protect the public, so the police are given sweeping new powers, or new restrictions are introduced on owning firearms. Afterwards, the media rush off on a new story, and the public forgets. Later, there is another tragedy somewhere else, and the process starts all over again.
Does this sound familiar? It should. This has been the pattern followed by virtually every gun law that has been introduced in the twentieth century around the world. In the 1990s, we’ve seen this drama on television from Australia, Great Britain, the United States, not to mention Canada, as well other countries. It's time to pause and ask a few basic questions. If gun laws work to prevent criminal violence, why do these events keep occurring? And not just in places where the gun laws are comparatively lax, but in countries where it is all but impossible for an average person to own a handgun. Guns are banned in schools. How could gun attacks happen in "gun free" zones such as schools?
This paper is adapted from the Sixth Annual Civitas Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia held April 26 though 28, 2002. |