by Kerby Anderson

Do we have evidence that strict gun control laws reduce the murder rate? This is a question economist Thomas Sowell asks us to contemplate. He explains that this “is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available.” After all, we have crime statistics from all 50 states that have very different gun control laws.

The fact that you rarely hear a gun control advocate cite such data should tell you something. Sometimes an advocate might talk about murder rates in other countries. Thomas Sowell addresses that issue in his column. But even so, the comparison between the U.S. and other countries isn’t that helpful. A much better comparison would be to compare American murder rates in one state to another state.

If we have data that shows that gun ownership increases the murder rate, then we can talk about repealing the Second Amendment. Some have said we should have a Twenty-Ninth Amendment that says: “The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.” Former justice John Paul Stevens instead would merely add five extra words to the Second Amendment so that it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murder, why call for strict gun control laws? Why take so much time to demonize anyone who supports the Second Amendment? And why treat gun owners almost like they are criminals? Last week Hawaii became the first state to enroll gun owners into a federal criminal monitoring database.

It is time to call the bluff of those who want more gun control. If they believe the Second Amendment is wrong, they should submit a Twenty-Ninth Amendment for constitutional ratification. If they believe more gun control will save lives, put the relevant data supporting that position on the table. I doubt they will do either.