Death Wish

The only practical benefit of the recently passed Brady Bill is that it eliminates the possibility of Charles Bronson making any more Death Wish movie sequels. The vigilante will now have to wait for five days before avenging the deaths of his wife and daughter. Granted, the first of the films contained an effective plot. But, as movie remakes tend to deteriorate with each attempt, so do the remakes of gun legislation.

James Brady, the well-meaning, teddy bear-like, activist along with a few friends have bestowed upon every citizen the gift of a five day waiting period for handgun purchases. Truly, the bill does prevent the infinitesimal number of retail gun purchases by criminals. Notice the word “purchases.” The reason that criminals aren’t running scared is because it’s their job to operate outside of the law. Thanks to the Brady Bunch, it’s now easier to steal a firearm than purchase one.

Crime continues. For the girl being stalked by her jealous ex-boyfriend or the family threatened by the local crack dealer, the law cuts off their noses despite their faces. Anyone needing protection in such instances will themselves become criminals if they use an alternative means of purchase. Most folks will no doubt risk the penalty. As the saying goes, “I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.”

So they’ve won. But what are the celebrants saying as they wallow in the mud of victory? “Just a beginning…A foundation… Not nearly enough,” were some of their smug trumpetings. In fact, a group called Handgun Control Inc. has already unveiled a proposal that will further lampoon the second amendment. The Brady Bill II, The Return Of Brady, The Brady Bill Strikes Again, or whatever it may be called strays from the simple plot of the original production. It will be introduced by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) this January in theaters everywhere (C-SPAN). Its provisions are entwined with the same logic as the first bill: violent crime can be defeated by applying more restrictions on the law-abiding. In reality, the goal can be achieved by restricting the unlawful (through reforming judicial, police, and community policy).

Because of such blatant misfocus, the second wave of Brady style regulation is probably doomed to fail. But observe what headaches our determined vigilante must endure if he wants to legally acquire his weapon under the new bill (emphasis on legally). The prospective gun buyer enters the local sporting goods store.
Scenario one:
“I’d like to buy this .22 caliber Ruger,” he says.
“I’m afraid the price is going to be twenty percent higher due to the new gun tax,” the clerk says, “That box of ammo is up thirty-nine percent, too.”
“Really? I’m not interested at those prices.” He leaves the store.
Scenario two:
“I’d like to buy this .22 caliber Ruger,” he says.
“May I see your license, sir?” The clerk asks. “My license?”
“No license, no pistol.”
“Well, how do I get one?”
“First you have to enroll in the new training course. I’ll warn you that it’s very rigorous and quite expensive because now we can be sued if you shoot somebody. If you pass, we do a background check and take your photograph and fingerprints. Then if you can show us proof of liability insurance, you’re approved.”
“What about my Ruger?”
“Oh, I almost forgot. You can pick it up seven days later after you ‘cool off.’”
“No thanks.”
These situations, however rare, must replay frequently in the minds of those who wish to restrict gun purchases. Surely they envision the foiled gun seeker stomping away from the store having been rendered impotent by the clever new Son Of Brady Bill. But Charles Bronson-type characters are not so easily thwarted. In real life, the disgruntled soon-to-be criminal/vigilante would most likely snitch something from his neighbor’s arsenal that very day and leave the Bradyish hassles for sportsmen.

Such solutions are hammers swatting flies. Continually increasing the size of the hammer has not been successful. The scrutiny must be placed on people, violent people, not lawful people or things. For example, the recent crackdown on drunk drivers has reduced the number of D.U.I. related deaths. This is a much more plausible idea than limiting the availability of vehicles to lawful car operators (it’s a good thing Mr. Brady wasn’t injured in an automobile accident; we might be walking to work). The criminal-focused approach has worked because it addresses the intoxicated driver, not the safe driver, car, or car manufacturer as the principle evil. A similar pragmatic, decisive method would be effective in combating gun-related crimes.

If high-ranking government officials hearken to the Bradyites and talk seriously about “taxing ammunition out of existence” (Patrick Moynihan) and “banning toy guns” and “making guns safer” (Joycelyn Elders) as solutions now, what bizarre limitations will they spout in future years? None, if voters become vigilantes at the polls.

3/1/96