Making Guns Less Available Does Not Reduce Gun Violence

Citation metadata

Author: John R. Lott
Editor: Louise Gerdes
Date: Jan. 1, 2011
From: Gun Violence
Publisher: Greenhaven Press
Series: Opposing Viewpoints
Document Type: Viewpoint essay
Length: 842 words
Content Level: (Level 3)
Lexile Measure: 1040L

Document controls

Main content

Full Text: 

Article Commentary

John R. Lott, "Handgun Bans Don't Cut Crime," National Post [Canada], June 25, 2008. Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive Inc. and CanWest Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission of the author.

"Everyone wants to take guns from criminals, but banning guns ends up meaning only criminals, not law-abiding citizens, have them."

Policies that limit a law-abiding citizen's access to guns do not reduce gun violence, argues John R. Lott Jr. in the following viewpoint. In fact, he maintains, gun bans have done little to reduce crime in the cities that have banned them. For example, Lott asserts, the murder rate in Washington, D.C., began to fall before the city's gun ban and rose after it went into effect. Gun bans do not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, he reasons; bans simply ensure that only criminals have guns. Lott is author of The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong and More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.

As you read, consider the following questions:

  1. How did the murder rate in Washington, D.C., compare to the U.S. rate as a whole after its handgun ban went into effect?
  2. What does the author argue was the impact of Chicago's handgun ban?
  3. What, according to the author, has become the ultimate scapegoat for politicians' failure to control crime?

Banning handguns is all the rage. [Toronto, Ontario] Mayor David Miller's push for a national ban has been joined by other Canadian big-city mayors. Yet, dissatisfied with progress at the national level, Miller successfully asked city council this week to approve measures to further discourage gun ownership in Toronto, such as shutting down city-owned gun ranges.

Gun Bans and Murder Rates

While it may seem obvious to many people that banning handguns will save lives and cut crime, the experience in the United States suggests differently. Two major U.S. cities—Washington, D.C., and Chicago—have tried banning handguns....

Washington's ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there has been only one year (1985) when its murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. Murder rates were falling before the ban and rose afterward. In the five years before the ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000 people. In the five years after it went into effect, the rate rose back up to 35.

D.C.'s murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years that we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 U.S. cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth. By contrast, in 1976, its murder rate ranked 15th.

Not only did Washington's murder rate rise much faster than other cities, it rose more quickly than neighbouring Maryland's and Virginia's or the U.S. rate as a whole.

Similarly for overall violent crime, there have only been two years after the ban when D.C.'s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976.

Surely D.C. has had many problems that contribute to crime, but even cities with far better police departments have seen murder and violent crime soar in the wake of handgun bans. Chicago has banned all handguns since 1982. But that handgun ban didn't work at all when it came to reducing violence. Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years before the law and then rose slightly to 23. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities and its five neighbouring Illinois counties.

Where Gun Bans Increase Violent Crime

But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning handguns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give Mr. Miller and his supporters some pause. These are places that just can't blame the United States or other neighbouring states for the failure of their gun-control laws. Not only didn't violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually increased.

Great Britain banned handguns in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340% in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared. The Republic of Ireland and Jamaica also experienced large increases in murder rates after enacting handgun bans.

Everyone wants to take guns from criminals, but banning guns ends up meaning only criminals, not law-abiding citizens, have them. Just as it is extremely hard to stop illegal drugs from getting into Canada, drug gangs seem to find ways to bring in the guns. The weapons the Canadian border guards seize at the U.S. border are overwhelmingly from unwitting U.S. tourists. Few criminals smuggling guns are caught.

Possibly Toronto and Canada will somehow operate differently from the rest of the world, but gun control has become the ultimate scapegoat for politicians' failure to control crime. One hopes politicians will learn it is the law-abiding citizens, not criminals, who obey the bans.

Source Citation

Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
Lott, John R. "Making Guns Less Available Does Not Reduce Gun Violence." Gun Violence, edited by Louise Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, Accessed 13 Dec. 2019. Originally published as "Handgun Bans Don't Cut Crime," National Post, 25 June 2008.

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010223243