Today's MOZEN: To Regulate or Not to Regulate - That is the Question.

Photo: Adrees Latif/Reuters Words: F LoBuono

As a journalist I follow certain rules of the trade. For example, I don't take things at face value and assume that they are true. I have to KNOW that they ARE true, or are at least reasonable to assume that they may be (and, I will delineate as such). I also always investigate the source of the information - where is it coming from and do they have a particular ax to grind? And, I employ these techniques for ALL information.

With that in mind, I have been researching whether or not stricter gun control laws REALLY have an effect on gun violence. There is so much information available, most of it from highly biased sources (like the NRA), that it is nearly impossible to distinguish the shit from the shinola! More guns mean safer streets. Less guns mean safer streets. Depending on whom you ask, you'll get a healthy dose of opinions, many of them based on facts learned from so-called experts. But, again, most of these expert opinions are formed by people who, if they don't have a direct interest in one cause or the other, are usually paid by those who do.

So, I try to look for sources that are more academic in nature. They tend to be more about looking for real facts rather than reasons to simply justify their point of view. And, I think that I may have found one. In an article recently published in Newsweek (10/3/2015), Stanford Law Professor John Donohue, laid out his findings from doing nearly twenty years of research on the subject. He makes many valid, BALANCED points IN FAVOR of stricter gun control laws. But, none I thought, more cogent than the case he makes comparing the US to other industrialized nations with similar populations, morals, and cultures. He found countries that have stricter laws concerning the ownership of firearms have SIGNIFICANTLY lower rates of gun violence than we do. And, not having a NATIONAL GUN CONTROL POLICY is the loophole that can make all the difference. EASY access to weapons AND ammunition is the caveat. Professor Donohue makes the following case. Please note the passages I highlighted in bold face:

Lax gun control in one nation can create problems in another

Of course, strict gun regulations cannot ensure that the danger of mass shootings or killings has been eliminated.

Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But they didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011. His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, “I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.”

In fact, in the same manifesto (“December and January – Rifle/gun accessories purchased,” Breivik wrote that it was from a U.S. supplier that he purchased—and had mailed—10 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack.

In other words, even if a particular state chooses to make it harder for some would-be killers to get their weapons, these efforts can be undercut by the jurisdictions that hold out from these efforts. In the U.S., of course, gun control measures at the state and local level are often thwarted by the lax attitude to gun acquisition in other states.

I did not make up the quotes or the statistics. Neither did Professor Donohue. They are NOT opinions. They are telling us that we CAN do something. Close the loopholes! We need a National Gun Policy now! We are morally compelled to do so. Anything less is tantamount to murder.

* the link to the entire article: http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105