Customer Reviews

The Politics of Gun Control

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

"Not concerned with the efficacy..." of gun control laws. That about sums up The Politics of Gun Control. Dr. Spitzer started out to write a book exploring the policy resolution ramifications of gun control, but along the way he got sucked into arguments for the pro and con of gun control, and ended up delivering a weak polemic for stricter gun control laws.

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 offers a very readable scholarly treatment of this crucial public policy issue. He does a very thorough job of analyzing the problem of gun violence in America and makes clear and reasonable arguments about appropriate public policy responses. This is a must read for anyone interested in the issue.

I found Mr. Spitzer's book to be quite informative and thought-provoking. In regard to the question of evidence, I don't know what book Mr. Anderson of Portland, OR read, but Spitzer's book has an ample and varied list of sources (pages 154-203), about a quarter of the entire book. Most of his sources are respectable journals such as the Journal of the AMA and the NE Journal of Medicine, and he also cites many Supreme Court decisions in his examination of the Second Amendment's meaning. To Prof. Spitzer's credit, he also consulted the familiar sources on the pro-gun side of the debate: Kleck, Gertz, Kates, Rossi, et al. I'm sure that Spitzer will be accused of being "biased" or "liberal" because most of his conclusions do not support the pro-gun arguments, but please note that he, at times, does find some value in the questions that their research raises (see his comments on Kleck's doubts about a comprehensive national survey, pages 56-57). Spitzer's treatment of the Brady Law is also even-handed (pages 125-26).

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.

With the current atmosphere, it is more important than ever to try and understand this country's obsession with guns. Mr. Spitzer gives a careful analysis indeed of the past history and 'urban legends' that have resulted in the erroneous belief in our 'wild west' all the way to the present political success and strength of the NRA.

I read this book because I was required to in College. It is painfully, obvious that it was written from a predetermined conclusion. The history of the NRA is especially vicious. The author chastises the NRA at several points for the NRA early support by Government by subsidies, use of Nat'l parks to train WWII soldiers how to shoot, etc. The author essential argument that anyone that has ever received support from Gov't has duty not to ever to oppose the government in anything. In the beginning he points out that this book he will not examine gun control polices in foreign countries, yet on several instances he cites them (Canada for instance) to make his point, but nevertheless totally neglects gun control failures such as England and Austrailia (See London Times 1/16/2000 for details on this) . He quickly glosses over concealed weapon laws citing statistics showimng their failure, when a number of policy studies have concluded the opposite that Concealed weapon laws do in fact reduce crime. If you want one-sided reading of gun control this is your best bet.

Unlike one of the other previous reviewers, though I am generally a conservative, I would agree with this book's primary conclusion: the NRA has had a disproportionate impact on the politics of gun control.

The legal and constitutional analysis of the Second Amendment also does not seem to be much in dispute. Perhaps there is some evidence he does not cite for thinking that it goes back to an individual right to bear arms, but as conceived by those who wrote it, the Second Amendment was clearly intended to protect the rights of state militias.

Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in this issue, scholar and lay reader alike.

A fine book for anyone interested in understanding how the NRA has hijacked the issue of gun control in the U.S.. Spitzer's analysis is well-reasoned and presented clearly. I recommend this book highly.

I wonder if the reader from Glen Ellen CA and I read the same book? That review seemed to my mind an excellent example of tediously shaving facts to fit one's predilections- much more so than the actual work in question.

I do happen to agree with him in this regard- people who have already made up their minds about the issue will find the book irritating-- in much the same way that baseball fans are irritated by umpires.

Spitzer builds a case for stepping back from the issue far enough to see alternatives clearly, and to understand the larger forces driving the insanity of this battle over weapons of destruction.

The problem for Spitzer is that human beings consistently develop addictions to causes that allow them to release large amounts of adrenaline into their circulatory and central nervous systems in the form of rage, paranoia and righteous indignation. Actually solving the problem would be the equivalent of flushing one's favorite stash of drugs down the toilet. Those who don't want to see this battle over guns ended will find plenty of things to irritate and discomfort them in Spitzer's intelligent analysis.

As Don Kates has pointed out in his review of Mr. Spitzer's book, the author asserts that firearm murders are committed by nice, ordinary folks who grabbed a handy gun and killed someone in anger! But this is simply false! Criminolgical studies have consistently shown that murderers are NOT, by and large, ordinary folks at all. Far from it. Perhaps 90% of murders committed in the US with a firearm are committed by aberrant citizens with a long record of criminal activity. See Kates & Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate. See also Wright & Rossi, Under the Gun: for numerous citations of criminologic studies which conclude the opposite of what Prof Spitzer is trying to make us believe. He is, of course, perfectly free to believe and to promulgate whatever he wants. This is America. But we have the responsibility to sort fact from fiction when it comes to formulating public policy!