Still true, 25 years later

This is one of the first clippings I found in my dad's folio. It went back to the old debate back before the Brady Gun Bill was law.

Brady gun bill wouldn't have stopped John Hinckley

James Brady is misleading when he claims that a handgun waiting period would have stopped John Hinckley Jr. from shooting him and Ronald Reagan in 1981 (commentary, April 5). Had Hinckley not bought the handgun he used, he could have used one of several he already owned, or purchased it on the black marked.

Anyone who will break a law against murder is not going to be deterred by another law saying he can't legally own a gun. (Just for the record, such a law wouldn't have stopped Stockton schoolyard killer Patrick Purdy either -- he passed a background check and a 15-day waiting period in California.)

Brady then goes on to claim that his namesake legislation, known as the Brady bill, is endorsed by every major law enforcement group in America and by rank and file law enforcement officers as well. In truth, only the political leaders of some of these groups support him. The rank and file don't support more gun legislation.

He also knows better than to say that "concealed" handguns, especially assault pistols ...are increasingly the weapons of choice for crack peddlers and drug addicts." What he doesn't say is that drug dealers are more likely to kill with a baseball bat or a more conventional (and probably stolen) handgun like a Colt, a Ruger or a Smith and Wesson. Use of legally acquired "assault weapons" by drug criminals is and always has been a minor fraction of weapons used. Brady also doesn't say that many responsible gun owners own and use those listed "assault pistols" for legitimate target shooting and self-defense. Such would be my weapon of choice, if I could afford one, for protecting myself and my family.

Worst of all, Brady implies that the bill would stop criminals who, by their actions, and by the very definition of the word "criminal," wouldn't obey or be affected by such a law. At least five out of every six guns used in crimes are not legally acquired anyway. Usually they are stolen.

The Brady bill could, however, be used to create lists of legitimate gun owners, lists which have historically been preludes to confiscation of those guns. Recent events in Lithuania demonstrate the legitimacy of this concern. The Soviet authorities knew who had any capability to resist military repression with force.

In the United States, the Bill of Rights was designed as an insurance policy against government tyranny, foreign and domestic. Because gun owners are a key part of this insurance policy, they have every right to object to a waiting period or background check, and should do so.

Gun control has a long and black history of political repression and tyranny abroad. Promoted as a tool of crime fighting, gun control has been a spectacular failure. James Brady is using disinformation and misguided emotions to argue his case, because the facts don't give him the results he wants.


Joon Stignani, Lindstrom, Minn. Civil servant for the city of St. Paul.

-Taken from a Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial, ca. 1990


I don't know about you, but I don't remember a single statistic purported recently that would back the claims that the Brady bill, or any "gun control" law has ever stopped violent crime, or even violent crime involving a gun of any sort. As my dad always said, "Criminals don't obey the law anyway." So here, over 15 years since the editorial, and 25 years since the actual shooting, and where are we? We are living in a country where it's more dangerous to live in the Nation's Capitol than it is to serve in the Armed Forces in Baghdad, Iraq, a city that is supposedly decimating our troops. We live in a country where the criminals are still getting guns, illegally, where law-abiding citizens have great difficulty buying them to protect themselves from said criminals.

It didn't make sense then. It doesn't make sense now. It will never make sense. Laws only work with those who choose to obey them. For the law-breakers and criminals, they can only add to a sentence if they are caught.

Bottom line, get rid of these stupid laws. The states with some of the loosest gun control laws (Texas and Florida) have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. Go figure.

Agree with me or not, the facts are there. Find them for yourself. I did.