Gun Control: What Went Wrong?
  By Michael S. Brown
  FrontPage Magazine.com | April 26, 2001
  URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/

  DURING THE 1990S, the gun control movement seemed unstoppable. Numerous
  gun laws were passed at all levels of
  government. With the aid of powerful media allies, gun ownership was
  tagged as an antisocial act and supporters of gun rights
  were successfully portrayed as tools of an evil gun lobby. The issue was
  considered so powerful that a major party included a call
  for much stricter gun control as an important part of its platform.

  Since the election of 2000, analysts have been pondering the anti-gun
  lobby's sudden reversal of fortune. Politicians have deserted
  the cause like rats leaving a sinking ship. The Million Mom March laid off
  most of its paid staff and was thrown out of its free
  office space for alleged improprieties. Their hated opponent, the National
  Rifle Association, has seen membership surge to an
  all-time high of 4.3 million.

  Anti-gun operatives are questioning their strategy and trying to maintain
  morale among the troops. Cracks are widening between
  the various organizations who blame each other for tactical errors.

  What went wrong? Simply put, gun control was over-hyped. Politicians and
  other opportunists were seduced by an emotional issue
  that appeared to have no downside. Jumping on a bandwagon that claimed to
  protect moms and kids seemed a quick and easy
  route to better approval ratings. With so much excitement in the air, it
  was easy to ignore the logical flaws in the emotion-based
  arguments.

  Underlying the entire movement were two unquestioned assumptions. First,
  that more gun laws were a surefire way to reduce
  crime and other forms of firearms abuse. The second was the belief that
  guns were used far more often for evil than for good.
  Since these were accepted as fact, the faithful were not concerned by the
  lack of solid proof.

  Some followers of the faith realized that they were on shaky ground. Fake
  studies were funded to show an overwhelming negative
  effect from civilian gun ownership. Clever, but misleading sound bites
  were constantly created to reinforce the impression of a
  terrible and growing epidemic of gun violence. By the time one statement
  was discredited, another was ready to take its place.

  Statistics were twisted to make it appear that most victims of gun
  violence were innocent middle class children, rather than young
  adult males involved with gangs and drugs. Suicides, accidents, homicides
  and justifiable shootings by police officers were lumped
  together to make the numbers more impressive. As many observers have
  noted, when the facts did not support their beliefs, they
  simply lied.

  While the media trumpeted gun control victories and parroted the party
  line, opponents and neutral scholars were researching the
  facts. Since so many countries, states and cities have enacted strict gun
  control laws, it is now relatively easy to find out how
  effectively they have reduced crime and suicide. The utter failure of new
  gun laws to create any positive effect whatsoever was
  devastating to the anti-gun arguments.

  Even more damning are the data showing that crime often worsens when gun
  control laws are tightened. Washington, D. C.,
  California, England, and Australia, are just a few of the areas where
  crime increased embarrassingly after new laws were passed.
 

  They also proved the truth of the old saying that registration leads to
  confiscation. When American gun owners saw video footage
  showing piles of confiscated guns being destroyed in Australia, they were
  unlikely to believe claims by the gun control lobby that
  their goals were strictly limited.

  Scholarly studies by Professor John Lott showed another interesting
  effect. In states that enacted laws enabling law abiding
  citizens to obtain concealed weapon permits, crime dropped. This strikes
  at the very heart of the gun control movement which
  claims that the proliferation of guns is responsible for crime. Unable to
  rally enough academic horsepower to refute Lott's results,
  gun control groups resorted to ugly personal attacks.

  While gun control arguments were being dismantled by academics, grassroots
  action by gun owners exploded. Fearing extinction
  beneath the steamroller of anti-gun hysteria, they bombarded elected
  officials with messages, formed many new gun rights
  organizations and began participating in street demonstrations for the
  first time. The appearance of these normal, sensible people
  counteracted the attempt to portray gun owners as anti-social rednecks.

  Changes in media coverage also contributed to the climate shift. In the
  year prior to the election, studies by media watchdog
  groups showed an overwhelming bias, on the order of ten to one, in the
  slant of network news stories about the gun control debate.
  The national media began to look like bullies ganging up on gun owners.

  The Fox News Network was first to realize that many viewers were fed up
  with the blatant bias and started airing stories that
  showed both sides of the issue. Although the more liberal newspapers and
  networks maintained their anti-gun bias, moderate and
  conservative media outlets suddenly felt free to discuss the other side of
  the debate. The media monopoly enjoyed by the gun
  control lobby was broken.

  Just before the election, when the NRA staged rallies that were attended
  by thousands of angry gun owners, the politicians could
  see that the winds had changed. Although the election produced no
  overwhelming victory for either side, the opportunists realized
  that gun control was no longer a winning issue. Now only the true
  believers remain.

  Does this mean the end of the gun control movement? Certainly not, because
  it never depended on mass participation. Major
  funding has always come from a relatively small number of rich donors. As
  long as the limousine liberals have money to spend, the
  movement will live on.