Anti-gun measures lack evidence of effectiveness

AP Photo/Wilson Ring

In the deal recently reached by a bipartisan group of senators, there are a number of anti-gun measures. Some activists are calling for much, much more.

The truth is that they want to heavily restrict the exercise of our Second Amendment rights, claiming that the laws they’re calling for are the only way to combat homicides.

Yet, there’s a problem. There’s no evidence that such laws actually work.

Calls for gun control have echoed across the nation following a series of devastating mass shootings. Some experts, however, say there’s little to no evidence showing that tightening laws on guns will prevent violent crimes and similar shootings.

“Not really,” Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott told Fox News Digital when asked if there is empirical evidence showing gun control measures can prevent violent crimes. “There’s been a lot of studies done on things like assault weapons bans, background checks … Even for the assault weapons ban, even the Clinton administration – which signed it into law – paid for research on it. And even their studies couldn’t find any benefits in terms of reducing a type of violent crime or in terms of stopping things like mass public shootings.”

“President Biden’s proposed measures to curb guns would NOT reduce gun crime and also have constitutional problems,” George Mason University Professor Emerita Joyce Lee Malcolm told Fox News Digital. “We had an assault weapon ban for 10 years. It was allowed to expire because the Justice Department research said it had no appreciable impact on crime.”

A Department of Justice study published in 1999 that examined the short-term effects of the ban found it “has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”

And, of course, a new assault weapon ban is a big item on the anti-gun wishlist.

Yet we also have evidence that studies claiming such anti-gun measures work are exceptionally problematic and basically worthless.

So my question is just why should we curtail the rights of law-abiding Americans based on the idea that it’s required to combat crime when there’s no evidence of it working? Like, at all?

The answer is, of course, we shouldn’t. Failed policies that infringe on constitutionally protected rights have no place in our laws. They wouldn’t belong even if they worked, but they don’t, so that’s even less reason to embrace them.

Yet for those who are willing to advance this particular agenda, none of these facts are remotely relevant. They cling to whatever cherry-picked, confirmation-bias study they can find to support them and completely ignore anything else.

These laws do nothing. We know this definitively, yet we continue to have this debate instead of being able to talk about the debates that actually matter. We’re not talking about methods that would actually reduce crime and make people’s lives better. We’re still arguing over these failed policies.

Frankly, it’s more than a little sickening, to tell the truth.

This is, unfortunately, how it works in a place where most of the media is tripping over itself to support an anti-gun narrative, where these questions are rarely asked and even more rarely published.

And they wonder why the trust in media is so low these days.