By Charles C. W. Cooke
Saturday, September 10, 2016
In the course of this God-awful, drink-inspiring, litter-runt
of a presidential election, it has become common to hear it said in certain of
the Right’s more histrionic quarters that conservatism has failed and needs to
be burned swiftly to the ground.
As a proposition, this has little to recommend it. One
rarely improves upon the prospects of anything by setting fire to it, and,
besides, the claim itself has the intractable problem of being false. In fact,
conservatism has achieved an enormous amount in the last half century, and, had
it been permitted to take the Republican party’s reins this year, it could have
continued to do so into the future. The presidential veto being what it is, the
Right’s national role over the last decade or so has been to stand athwart
progressivism yelling “Stop.” In the states, however — where most of the real
governing is done — reform has been relentless and meaningful. Consider, if you
will, that both Michigan and Wisconsin are now “right to work” jurisdictions —
a development that would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago;
consider that more than half of the nation’s education systems now boast some
form of school-choice program; and consider that the last five years have
played backdrop to more than a quarter of all of the state-level abortion
regulations enacted into law since 1973. Where they have been able to gain a
foothold, Republican officeholders have been busy and they have been effective,
and the country as a whole has been improved by their work.
Those who remain skeptical of this defense need not take
my word for it. Instead, they might look no further than to the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, the swift and deep restoration of which has
astonished even the most optimistic of the Second Amendment’s many ardent
advocates. Thirty years ago, concealed-carry licenses were the playthings of
the rich and the connected; now, all 50 states have permitting regimes.
Twenty-five years ago, almost half of Americans wanted to ban handguns
completely; today, to so much as broach that unlovely idea is to commit instant
electoral suicide. In the 1990s, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford took to the New York Times to urge the imposition of
more gun control, while President George H. W. Bush publicly left the NRA;
today, such maneuvers would be politically unimaginable. The idea of an
assault-weapons ban, which once enjoyed the support of 77 percent of the
general public, is long gone — perhaps never to return. And, most important of
all, the revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment that had been so cynically
picked up within leftward-leaning academic and legal circles lies today in
tatters, having been ripped apart not only by Antonin Scalia and his Supreme
Court majority, but by a scrupulous group of progressive lawyers who proved
unwilling to trade historical truth for political expedience. The “gun-control
moment” has passed.
That being so, one could be forgiven for wondering why
John R. Lott Jr. has felt the need, in 2016, to write a long and defensive book
The War on Guns: Arming Yourself against
Gun-Control Lies. Surely, if there is indeed a “war,” it is he and his side
who are winning it? By rehearsing every argument he can think of, is he not out
wandering the poppy-laden fields, bayoneting the last of the wounded?
The answer to these questions is both yes and no.
Certainly, Lott and his associates are winning now. But there are dark clouds
on the far horizon, and they are moving ever closer. Politically, the coming
Trumpocalypse is likely to yield a political landscape that is less favorable
to gun-rights champions than has been the status quo. Culturally, it remains
the case that pro–Second Amendment news is kept out of the national media and
away from the public’s ears. And, while they have been all but vanquished in
the court of public opinion, America’s flush anti-gun outfits have begun to
organize and to spend in earnest. Who is to say that 2017 will continue the
three-decade trend?
Not Lott, evidently. And so, faced by this trio of
threats, he has contrived to prebut the coming onslaught — to get his blows in
before the next battle has begun. Taken in toto, The War on Guns is no less than a nonstop debunking of the most
popular and the most abiding of the gun-control movement’s talking points. It is
not a polemic. It is not a from-the-ground-up argument for self-defense. It is
not a historical or explanatory stricture. It’s a sustained game of
whack-a-mole. Up pops the claim, and in comes the hammer. Bang! Bang! Bang! And
that’s why you’re wrong.
Believe that most academics are in favor of more gun
control? Bang, you’re wrong. Convinced that extending background checks is a
no-brainer? Bang, you’re wrong. Outraged that research into “gun violence” is
outlawed in the United States? Bang, bang, and bang again. Nothing escapes
Lott’s gaze: not the idea that American gun violence is unique among the
world’s nations; not the claim that Australia’s harsh restrictions yielded a
worthwhile outcome; not the recent hysteria over the prevalence of “mass shootings”;
not the fallacious belief that “Stand Your Ground” laws hurt, rather than help,
minorities. One by one, Lott examines his opponents’ critiques. And, one by
one, he addresses them. At his best, he dismantles shoddy and mendacious work
with the skill of an experienced surgeon. At his worst, he presents the best
possible counter-cases with misplaced confidence. Still, in both cases, the
corrective is welcome.
Some of the scams that Lott exposes are indeed
extraordinary. We are all accustomed to hearing that “keeping a gun in the home
is associated with an increased risk of homicide,” Lott notes, and yet few
people know just how weak the link is between those two propositions. And how.
As Lott records, the most cited study in favor of this theory assumes as part
of its methodology “that if someone died from a gunshot, and a gun was owned in
the home, . . . it was the gun in the home that killed that person.” But this,
to put it politely, is entirely false. In fact, “in only eight of [the] 444
homicide cases” included in the study “was the gun that had been kept in the
home the murder weapon.” As Lott concludes trenchantly at the end of his
debunking, to claim that guns are killing people in their homes because
intruders bring guns into those homes is akin to claiming that hospitals are
killing people because dying people are brought there in extremis.
Games such as these are routinely played within the
“public-health literature,” the traditional purpose of which is not to
establish the truth but to provide anti-gun politicians with snappy sound bites
that they can pass off to the public as “science.” Lott points to a lovely
example of this from the journal Pediatrics,
which in 2014 published a paper claiming that incidents involving firearms sent
7,391 “children” per year to the hospital and 453 to the morgue. Because these
numbers were alarming, the press was quick to jump all over the story — and in
the sort of saccharine tones that are reserved for tales of helpless infants
and innocent kids. What nobody watching at home knew, however, was that Pediatrics had used an extremely broad
definition of both “children” and “incidents” — a definition, it turns out,
that included anybody under the age of 20 and covered all sorts of behaviors,
up to and including assault. In fact, as Lott points out, the vast majority (76
percent) of those included in the “children” category were 17, 18, or 19 years
old, and two-thirds of their injuries were sustained as a result of criminal
assaults — mostly in urban areas. Which is to say that Pediatrics had played a clever rhetorical trick upon its audience
and laundered adult crime into bambino sympathy. One wonders what we will hear
next on the evening news. Perhaps Pediatrics
will issue a study on the heavyweight-boxing results, under the dramatic
headline, “Children fight it out in glitzy Las Vegas for a large cash prize.”
“It is hard to debate guns if you don’t know much about
the subject,” Lott contends at the beginning of Chapter 10. And, clearly, most
people don’t know much about the subject. It is for this reason, Lott argues,
that the press can get away with conflating “automatic” and “semi-automatic”;
with confusing “Stand Your Ground” and self-defense; and with pretending that
gun shows are exempt from the usual rules. It is for this reason that
politicians sell gun registries as panaceas when nowhere in North America are
police able “to point to a single instance of gun registration aiding the
investigation of a violent crime.” It is for this reason that so much money is
spent in “producing false and misleading information”: because those who
produce it “have seen from polls that it makes a difference.” And, ultimately,
it is for this reason that, at what looks like a high point for the Second
Amendment, John Lott has written a book such as this one.
For all but the most obsessive follower of the debate, The War on Guns will make dry reading;
at root, this is a volume about social science and methodologies and little
else besides. And yet, despite its wonkish bent, Lott’s work is by no means
without value. On the contrary: The book’s subtitle is “Arming Yourself against
Gun-Control Lies,” and its author has done precisely that. From time to time, I
receive e-mails or letters from neutral or interested readers who want to find
the best argument against a given anti-gun meme. Previously, those arguments
have been spread across the Internet and the literature, hidden in a thousand
different, often hard-to-reach places. Now, thanks to John R. Lott Jr., they
exist in one quick-to-access place. Whether one agrees with every single one of
his conclusions (I don’t) is beside the point. Discussions need to start from
somewhere, and this book is an excellent overture to a more balanced and more
honest contest of ideas. Let us hope it is not as urgently necessary as the
daily news suggests it may soon prove to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment