Fox Butterfield, Is That You?

[Again, credit to James Taranto for title]


IN 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic “assault” weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked.

One of the state’s leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. “The new gun law,” he predicted, “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.”

It didn’t.

The 1998 legislation did cut down, quite sharply, on the legal use of guns in Massachusetts. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state had plummeted. “There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998,” the AP reported. “In June [2002], that number was down to just 200,000.” The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State’s stiff new restrictions had made it possible to “weed out the clutter.”

But the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals.

Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — “a striking increase from the 65 in 1998.” Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for gun-control activists to admit they were wrong.

Don’t worry, I won’t. They explain, justify, and prevaricate—but they never admit when they’re wrong. Even when (especially when) it’s indisputable that they are:

As in the rest of the country, violent crime had been declining in Massachusetts since the early 1990s. Beginning in 1998, that decline reversed — unlike in the rest of the country. For example, the state’s murder rate (murders per 100,000 inhabitants) bottomed out at 1.9 in 1997 and had risen to 2.8 by 2011. The national murder rate, on the other hand, kept falling; it reached a new low of 4.7 in 2011. Guns-across-borders might have explained homicide levels in Massachusetts continuing unchanged. But how can other states’ policies be responsible for an increase in Massachusetts homicides?

The Left claims to be the ideology of logic and science. But it’s just ideology. Ideology unchained.


  1. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    February 18, 2013 @ 1:55 pm

    I had a conversation about this with an attorney friend last week. She’s a liberal. She’s committed to gun control and she brought the topic up. I just sat there and agreed with everything she said. And what she said was that no matter how good one location does in controlling weapons, we need to get rid of certain weapons everywhere. If violence is high in Chicago, it is because guns come in from Indiana. Gun control has nothing to do with increased violence and instead leads to decreases in gun violence. Obviously this begs the question of why crime increases in areas with strict gun control, but if you ask, you hear about the murder rate in Britain. You can’t argue with people that are that irrational.

    - Aggie

  2. Buck O'Fama said,

    February 18, 2013 @ 3:08 pm

    Gun control does not make guns magically disappear or cease to be produced. Guns will be hidden, especially by those who don’t give a crap about “the law” to begin with. Guns will still be imported, stolen or manaufactured surrepetitiously. Meth, heroine, cocaine, etc, have been illegal for decades. You can’t keep the stuff out and/or from being made. Smugglers devise ingenious ways to bring the stuff in, often at the risk of their own lives, to make a few bucks on the black market. Others willingly risk their lives to make illegal drugs – how many houses have you heard about blowing up and killing meth cookers?

    She made the point herself: “no matter how good one location does in controlling weapons, we need to get rid of certain weapons everywhere.” Weapons will still be made SOMEWHERE, even if only for military purposes. Those weapons will find their way here because there’s money involved in making it so. Count on it.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment