Today's Wall Street Journal carried the following editorial.
Until the end of July you can sign on at no cost to the interactive online
edition.
http://www.wsj.com
July 23, 1996
               Editorial
               Scapegoating Gun Owners
               Accounts in the British press recently told of the courage
               shown by adults during the rampage of a madman with a
               machete at St. Luke's Church of England infants' school
               in rural Wolverhampton. One teacher reportedly held two
               children in a protective hug as the assailant whacked at
               her back with the machete. There is a lesson to be
               learned from this awful attack: a madman will always find
               a way and a weapon, no matter how often politicians
               preach about the merits of gun control.
               Following two other acts of horrific violence--the murder
               of 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in Dunblane,
               Scotland, in March and the shooting and arson spree in
               Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April that resulted in 35
               deaths--lawmakers responded with calls for more
               stringent gun control. These two instances differ from the
               one in Wolverhampton in that the crimes were indeed
               committed with guns.
               But the ineffectiveness of gun control laws in keeping
               lethal weapons out of the hands of violent criminals has
               been demonstrated by high levels of violent crimes in
               some U.S. cities that attempt to enforce tight gun control
               ordinances. And guns aren't always the weapon of
               choice. According to the British Home Office, there were
               66 gun-related homicides in England and Wales in 1994.
               But there were 236 homicides using knives, 167 as a
               result of blunt objects and hitting and kicking, and 106
               from strangulation. Despite these statistics, legislators
               continue formulating further efforts to control gun
               ownership.
               New laws seem all the more ineffectual when you
               consider that the Dunblane case could have been
               prevented if the authorities had just enforced existing law.
               Britain has strict gun control legislation requiring the
               inspection of where the gun will be kept, personal
               interviews and a letter of recommendation from a
               respected member of the community. But a man intent on
               mayhem is hardly likely to play by those rules.
               Yet, gun opponents are trying to capitalize on the
               publicity. Alex Carlisle, a legislator with the Liberal
               Democrat Party, has suggested that gun-permit applicants
               undergo psychological tests. Others suggest that the
               names of gun permit applicants be listed in the local
               newspaper or on billboards, so anyone thinking them
               "odd" could report them to the police. And just this week
               a group has called for a ban on all hand guns in the U.K.
               other than single-shot .22s. Would that also apply to
               upper crust grouse shooters?
               In response to the Port Arthur shootings, Australian
               Prime Minister John Howard has vowed to stick by his
               commitment to stricter gun control, despite protest rallies
               of up to 70,000 in mid-June. At Mr. Howard's urging,
               the Australian parliament has drafted a bill virtually
               banning all rifles. The only apparent exception will be for
               farmers, who will face a tough test before police will grant
               them access to self-loading .22-caliber rifles, or to
               automatic or pump-action shotguns. Mr. Howard has not
               totally dismissed the complaints: "I've always
               acknowledged there are a lot of law-abiding people who
               are going to be affected by these new laws."
               Clearly, politicians wish to appear to be "doing
               something" in response to tragedies. And at first glance it
               might appear that it is a small thing to ask law-abiding
               citizens of a civilized society to surrender guns. It might
               indeed be a small thing if the result were a safer society.
               But not everyone agrees that this is the result. Some
               police experts think the result is the opposite of what is
               intended, that owners of illegal guns are more likely to use
               them to commit crimes if they think their victims are
               defenseless. It is indeed fair to ask if the tragedies at
               Dunblane, Port Arthur and Wolverhampton would have
               turned out differently had some one in the vicinity had a
               gun and the training to use it properly. The citizenry in
               Britain, Australia and elsewhere would be better served if
               lawmakers acknowledged this and began trying to figure
               out how to make schools--and society in general--safer,
               rather than scapegoating law-abiding gun owners.
--- FMail 1.02
---------------