You don't need a Glock to shoot holes in this pro-gun drivel

For those of us not living in the US, news of each new semi-automatic gun massacre is usually cause for a mild head-shaking, muttering of "boy, what a nutcase", and then, finally, "and STILL they won't ban guns". It's kind of comforting to see this bizarre situation as an awful consequence of lobby groups like the NRA and head-the-balls like Charlton Heston; it's much more worrying when you read serious-minded academics (from Harvard, no less) writing gun-lobby-sympathetic drivel like what has just appeared on Bloomberg:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-13/strict-gun-control-will-seem-like-war-on-drugs-jeffrey-miron.html

I offer up some of the choicest cuts for your consideration:

Would these or other laws prevent incidents like the Arizona shooting? Probably not. And such laws, along with existing gun controls, not only harm responsible gun owners but may even increase violence.

Consider, for example, a ban on extended-capacity ammunition clips. If these had been unavailable, Loughner could still have carried out his attack with a 10-bullet clip, and he might have aimed more carefully knowing he had less ammunition. Loughner could have brought several guns, allowing him to continue firing without interruption. Loughner could have purchased extended-ammo clips that were sold before a ban took effect (especially since the prospect of bans stimulates sales in advance of implementation). Or he could have bought a black- market clip, perhaps just by placing a classified advertisement.

So, it was better that he had a 30-bullet clip: otherwise, who knows how many more people he might have killed by aiming "more carefully" and carrying extra guns.

And since he could have just bought it black-market anyway, what's the point in outlawing anything -- drugs for instance?

But gun controls, even mild ones, do have adverse consequences.

At a minimum, these laws impose costs on people who own and use guns without harming others, whether for hunting, collecting, target practice, self-defense, or just peace of mind. The inconvenience imposed by bans on extended-ammunition clips or waiting periods to buy a gun might seem trivial compared with the deaths and injuries that occur when someone like Loughner goes on a rampage. And if the only negative from these controls were such inconveniences, society might reasonably accept that cost, assuming these controls prevent some acts of violence.

So there we have it: we need to balance the tragic slaughter of innocent people by a madman, against the inconvenience of all those saintly gun owners who "own and use guns without harming others"! Seems like a fair trade doesn't it? But hang on, what exactly can you use a deadly for, apart from harming others? Luckily, the author offers some examples:

Hunting: oh that's okay, because there you're just gunning down innocent, possibly endangered, animals. And you need the 30-clip because just having a gun wouldn't give you a fair chance.

Collecting: umm... so why do you need bullets?

Target practice: what are you practicing for?

Self-defense: so, if you shoot someone in self-defense that doesn't count as harm? Tell it to judge, honey!

Peace of mind: this weaselly catch-all is the best of the lot -- and doesn't really need any further explanation. Go ask the shooting victims and their families about how much "peace of mind" a country full of gun-totin' rednecks gives them.

But mild controls don't always stay mild; more often, they evolve into strict limits on guns, bordering on outright prohibition. And this isn't just slippery-slope speculation; a century ago most countries had few gun controls, yet today many have virtual bans on private ownership. Some of these countries (the U.K. and Japan) have low violence rates that might seem to justify strict controls, yet others experience substantial or extreme violence (Brazil and Mexico).

So clearly, there's no discernible pattern here. I mean, it's not like you'd expect the UK and Japan, as first-world countries, to be more similar to the US than Brazil and Mexico, is it?

More broadly, comparisons between states and countries --as well as social-science research -- provide no consistent support for the claim that gun controls lower violence.

Australia, post Martin Bryant, would seem to be a good example, wouldn't it?

Beyond being ineffective, gun prohibition might even increase violence by creating a large black market in guns. So if gun laws follow the path of drug laws, we can expect more violence under gun prohibition than in a society with limited or no controls.

As mentioned above, by this argument nothing should be outlawed -- clearly a contradiction for a country that outlaws a fairly tame and ubiquitous substance like mary jane?