The Politics of Gun Control [Paperback]

Dr. Spitzer's original question intrigued me greatly. How, in a civilized society, does one develop a rational and moral course of action when so many competing interests are so stridently opposed to each other? What are the proper roles of the courts, of the federal government (both legislative and executive branches), of local government, and of advocacy groups, in determining the proper direction for government policy? Sadly, after posing these questions, The Politics of Gun Control fails to deliver, beyond the superfluous finale that the gun control dilemma can be resolved by treating gun control similarly to international arms control. (Suffice it to say I was unconvinced.)

Alternatively, as pro-control literature, The Politics of Gun Control fails utterly. Unlike Dr. Kleck's Targeting Guns, The Politics of Gun Control offers little insight into the methodologies of the studies cited, why one may be better than another, and offers virtually no explanation of the plausible mechanisms that underlie quoted study's results.

For other examples of the failings inherent in The Politics of Gun Control, consider the following:

- Many of the significant citations are taken from newspapers and magazines. While this may be acceptable for anecdotal recollections, it is not sufficient for scientific analysis. When concluding that "easy accessibility of weapons" is a significant contribution to a rise in homicide, one expects a more respected source than the New York Times.

- In the section devoted to participants to the debate, twenty-three pages are devoted to a rather mean-spirited negative portrayal of the National Rifle Association, and only one page to Handgun Control, Inc. In one quote, the rabidly anti-gun Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center is passed off as a "policy analyst".

- The section lambasting the NRA for its position on KTW "cop-killer" bullets blatantly misrepresents critical facts: facts readily available in Osha Gray Davidson's Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control. The result is that readers like "A customer from Michigan" draw erroneous conclusions and disparage a stand that never was.

- The material on "assault weapons" contains the same fabrications reported in HCI's partisan literature, and fails to adequately deal with the objections raised by David Kopel and others. Left unanswered are such critical objections as the irrationality of a ban on "assault weapons" that are fundamentally indistinguishable from other, unbanned, semi-automatic firearms, and that far from being criminal weapons of choice, "assault weapons" are actually under represented in crime. Again, the result is that less knowledgeable readers complain of the non-existent "proliferation of automatic weapons." If a book can be judged by its results, this one failed miserably to produce enlightened readers.

- The claim that firearms are not regulated because they are not under the control of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, is demonstrably false. (Interestingly, Robert Delfray of the National Shooting Sports Foundation reports the CPSC exemption for firearms was instituted because HCI attempted to use the CPSC to ban "the sale of bullets for handguns.") Firearms are manufactured according to SAMI regulations (part of ANSI) in addition to a multitude of access laws, not that you could learn this from The Politics of Gun Control.

- The chapter on the interpretation of the Second Amendment fails to answer any of the arguments raised by pro Second Amendment scholars (who are not necessarily anti-control) such as Clayton Cramer, Robert Cottrol, Stephen Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, Sanford Levinson and Lawrence Tribe. (Most of these authors have works available on Amazon.Com - I suggest you search and decide for yourself.) Many of these scholars appear in the endnotes, so obviously Dr. Spitzer has read their work, but their primary arguments are neither presented nor refuted. Of greater concern is that Dr. Spitzer's work promised to tell us what role, if any, should be assigned to judicial precedent, in deciding the future of gun control. Given that the courts have produced both good and bad decisions, how are we to know which ones are to be given credence and which consigned to the trash heap? After reading this chapter I was left with the feeling that Dr. Spitzer's criteria was based on which cases supported his preferred outcome.

On a general basis, I found especially irritating the emotive, value-based, unsupported, adjectives that are peppered throughout the text. I was looking for an alternative viewpoint, not consistent needling. For pro-control readers this may give you a warm glow; for more doubtful readers it may simply make you grit your teeth and reach for the markup pen.

In the final analysis, Dr. Spitzer begins with the twin propositions that the "purpose of government is to maintain order" and that the "purpose of firearms is the ... destruction of people, animals, and objects." Neither assumption is adequately supported; they are presented to be taken on faith. Perhaps, to one holding such beliefs, the burden of proof for the necessity of gun control is much lighter. To those who actually believe that governments are instituted to secure the blessing of liberty and that firearms are simply a tool for good or ill, The Politics Of Gun Control remains unconvincing.

Spitzer's book provoked me to thinking about the gun issue in new ways. His thesis that the gun-control debate is largely one of public-policy making in which "elephantine political forces battle over political mice" (page 136) is developed very well throughout. I also found his examination of the NRA quite interesting. After reading it, I began to feel that the organization has really hurt its own rank-and-file base by overly politicizing the issue of firearms. There must be a lot of outdoor enthusiasts and sportsman who don't think that the proliferation of automatic weapons and KTW armor-piercing bullets (aka, "cop-killer bullets") would make America a safer place. But the NRA does not permit such dissention in their ranks it seems (page 83). Spitzer writes that because of its hard-line, no compromise approach, the NRA "has often sacrificed both a sense of perspective and the truth, leading to a general erosion of its credibility outside of its core constituency" (page 100). I agree.

In short, I feel that this is a very useful and informative work. In light of the recent outbursts of gun violence in our country, I think that everyone concerned about the gun issue has an obligation to read this book.