In June 2001, on the initiative of some members of the council of the Omohundro Institute, the American Historical Association council adopted a remarkable statement, considering "personal attacks upon or harassment of an author, as we have seen directed at Michael A. Bellesiles following publication of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, to be inappropriate and damaging to a tradition of free exchange of ideas and the advancement of our knowledge of the past."

Notice that the council says they have seen these things and these consequences. Did they perhaps instead just hear about them from Bellesiles and his friends, like the rest of us? In a number of interviews before and after that date, Bellesiles said that after the book came out, he received many violent messages, including death threats, some aimed at his family. Reviews and other media accounts have often repeated these claims as facts. For example, the Manchester Guardian (June 1, 2002) reported that Bellesiles moved house because of threats against his family.

Threats of violence are indeed despicable. Moreover, such threats are felonies in themselves, each punishable by a substantial fine, imprisonment, or both, as prescribed by the codes of Georgia (16-11-37)1 and the United States (see for example 18 U.S.C. Part 1 Ch. 41 Sec 875b). As a first step toward an investigation, credible threats must be reported to local authorities. ¹

Bellesiles did not do this. Such complaints are in the public record. The police departments of Emory University, the city of Atlanta, DeKalb County, and Fulton County report no complaints from Bellesiles about harassment or threats. Of course, that doesn't mean he received no abusive messages, but it does suggest that he didn't really feel very threatened by them if he did -- not even enough to seek help from law enforcement. It seems too that he was right in this judgment: I know of no mention of actual attempts to physically harm him or his family, and I think he would have mentioned it, if any such attempt had been made. So, we are left wondering if he really did move his family out of their home over something he openly talked about but didn't feel a need to report. Based on his record so far, I'm not ready to take his word on this.

It is a fact, and not a new one, that in America, public discourse about strongly held opinions often leads to strong language. When the continuing attention given to these alleged threats and abusive messages is set alongside the almost nonexistent coverage of similar threats made against John Lott Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000), we can see that it is threats presumably made by 'gun-nuts' that are deemed newsworthy. Similar threats made against Lott are scarcely mentioned anywhere but in the second edition of his book, and even he gives them very little space (2000:204-5, 299).2 Lott's book showed strong statistical evidence of continuing downward trends in violent crime rates in each state after its adoption of nondiscretionary concealed weapon laws, so-called 'shall issue' permit laws. This finding drew down upon him harassment, threats, and outright, apparently organized lies from anti-gun zealots over a period of at least three years.

Lott considered most of the threats as evidence only of a need to let off steam. He mentions that one written threat was stuck onto his apartment door. Part of another threat can be read on p. 299 of the second edition. Surprisingly, it doesn't fit the wishful stereotype of gun-control advocates as sensitive, peace-loving folk. Its rhetoric is comparable in every way to stereotypical hard-right material.

Conversely, threats against Bellesiles are taken at face value and talked about because they support a belief cherished by advocates of gun control, including many academics, journalists, and their employers, that gun owners as a group have violent, even paranoid tendencies, and would naturally be inclined to make threats. After all, they own guns, don't they? So let's not spoil this picture by wondering who sent threats to John Lott.²

In the end, though, a focus on threats and harassment only distracts from more interesting questions: why did Bellesiles write his book in just that way, at just that time? And will the AHA make a timely statement condemning the fabrication and misquotation of sources?

¹ Here is the text of the Georgia code, Section 16-11-37.
(a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he threatens to commit any crime of violence or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise
causing serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated.
(b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when:
(1) He uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; or
(2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers.
(c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat or act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both.
(d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for:
(1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or
(2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $50,000.00, or both.

² Lott does trace the campaign of public health gun-control advocacy groups against his book as a part of his systematic rebuttal of published criticisms of his findings in the second edition. These groups and individuals assert over and over that the book"has been discredited." In my judgment, it has not. Don B. Kates et al. give an excellent survey and analysis of the public health anti-gun advocacy literature in their paper"Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda?" (61 Tenn. Law Rev. 513-596 [1994]).