- * Myth #1 "Guns are
only used for killing"
-
- Compared to about
35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to
protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are
65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives
are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of
guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives. [2]
-
- * Myth #2 "Guns are
dangerous when used for protection"
-
- US Bureau of Justice
Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of
defence. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the
defender than using any other means of defence and is safer than not
resisting at all. [3] The myth that "guns are only used for killing and
the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when
exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because
they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to
question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us
examine the other common myths.
-
- * Myth #3 "There is
an epidemic of gun violence"
-
- Even their claim of
an "epidemic of violence is false. That claim, like so many other of
their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that few think to
question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates
have been stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner
city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking. We
have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city contribution to
violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the
other paragons of gun control. [2]
-
- The actual causes of
inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject
poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty is so severe
that crime has become a rational career choice for those with no hope
of decent job opportunities. [4]
-
- * Myth #4 "Guns
cause violence" Homicide
-
- For over twenty
years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun
control, the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington,
DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average! [5] The US group for
whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white
men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the
US average. [6]
-
- If the
"guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged
"easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a
murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one- ninth of DC's overall homicide
rate of 80.6? [7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose
gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8,
Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with
draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York
14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)? [7] The "guns-
cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder. Again,
the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.
-
- Accidents
-
- National Safety
Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been falling steadily
since the beginning of this century and now hover at an all time low.
This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur annually,
a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands of innocent
children. [8]
-
- Suicide
-
- Gun bans result in
lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from
other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto
exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total
suicide rates. [3] People who are intent in killing themselves find the
means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically
correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but
do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?
-
-
- * Myth #5 The
"Friends and Family fallacy"
-
- It is common for the
public health advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders are of
"friends and family". The medical literature includes many such false
claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens
prior to their pulling the trigger" [9]and "most shootings are not
committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion
that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection." [10]
-
- Not only do the data
show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority of
homicides, [11] but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic
homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the
decedent. That duelling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them
"friends". Over three- quarters of murderers have long histories of
violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but
also against their relatives. [12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors have
no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the
topic is not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor
of violence." [16] The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic
homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of
violence inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the
imagery of "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of passion
simply because a gun was present "in the home."
-
-
- * Myth #6 "A
homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as
an intruder"
-
- To suggest that
science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is
dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited
claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member
than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is
one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defence lobby.
-
- The honest measure
of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries
prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not
Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand)
of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]
Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts
bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand
fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of
the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by
police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are
the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by
deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives
protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]
-
- Kellermann recently
downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in
discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish
between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more
diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that
diet drinks "cause" obesity.
-
- Also, he studied
groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug
addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and
violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal
homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated
that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for
protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own
studies.
-
-
- * Myth #7 "The costs
of gun violence are high"
-
- The actual economic
cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately $1.5-billion per
year [20]- less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual health care
costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun
prohibition routinely include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings" or
"years of productive life lost" - assuming that gangsters, drug
dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers,
factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims
of $20-billion or more in "costs." [20] One recent study went so far as
to claim the "costs" of work lost because workers might gossip about
gun violence. [21]
-
- What fraction of
homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who strayed into
gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more
than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their
customers. [22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a
criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offences. [23] These active
criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an
average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before
apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison. [24]
Because the anti-self-defence lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the
issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their
violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and
criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the
order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of
guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total
economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include
the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented,
medical costs averted, and property protected by guns.
-
- Whether by human or
economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net benefit
to our society. Other benefits, such as the feeling of security and
self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership, are less
easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making
good citizens' access to guns more difficult (whether by bureaucratic
"red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence. It is
only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good
citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions
with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC,
etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes
more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more - not
fewer - lives.
-
-
- * Myth #8 "Gun
control will keep guns off the street"
-
- Vicious predators
who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely
ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning,
wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honour additional gun
laws.
-
- Advocates of gun
control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an
understandable lapse, since even police state tactics cannot
effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a
country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned
civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25]
-
- Existent gun laws
impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people who
already honour the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments
in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm
those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the people
who live in the areas of highest risk.
-
- If "better" data are
forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications.
Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a
policy that saves lives.
-
- What does save lives
is allowing adult, mentally competent, law- abiding citizen access to
the safest and most effective means of protection - guns. [26,27]
-
-
- Brady I and Brady II
-
- The extremists at
Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential felons" [28]
[emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in the first
month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed the
preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal [29] of
the "success" of the Brady Law.
-
- The Virginia State
Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other jurisdictions have shown
that almost every one of those "potential" felons were not felons or
otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were innocents whose
names were similar to felons. Misdemeanour traffic convictions,
citations for fishing without a license, and failure to license dogs
were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that
labelled the others as "potential" felons. [30] In transparent
"governmentese," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the
Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of
numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect." [31]
-
- Even if the
preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about 6.3% of
retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated studies
showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions. A
minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by Brady Law
background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to
identify even one prosecution of those felons. [32 ] In such
circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes
to no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that
very few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns
are obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non retail
sources. [28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II
suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic
nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence.
-
- Residential gun
dealers
-
- The press and
broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers, pejoratively
named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the
source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted by
data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those
data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at
all. [33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the
Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large
number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy.
Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as
three guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed,
and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and
prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on
paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defence
lobby claim BATF does not have the resources to audit the paperwork
monster it created. Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure
that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the poor who are at
greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a
privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent.
-
- Instead of heaping
more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun dealers
who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable -
though admittedly more difficult - to target the real source of crime
guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal
guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun stock that is
used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on targeting
the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important to
reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by
presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the
inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the
perpetrators and victims of violence in our society.
-
-
- * Myth #9 "Citizens
are too incompetent to use guns for protection"
-
- Nationally good
citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police
to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better
safety record than the police. [3] About 11% of police shootings kill
an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent
person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are
loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less
likely to be wounded than the police.
-
- We can explain why
the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple truth
remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves
and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of
the gun control lobby has come true.
-
- "Treat cars like
guns"
-
- Advocates of
increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model of gun
ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely
applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is
needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property.
No proof of "need" is required for automobile registration or drivers'
licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on
any public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and
credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background
checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only
their use - and misuse - that is regulated.
-
- Although the toll of
motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no "arsenal permit"
equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle racing
enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile manufacturers
be sued when automobiles are frequently misused by criminals in bank
robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of crime and terrorism.
No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they "might" be
used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even
though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times
the national speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the usual
response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as
2.5-million good Americans every year.
-
- Progressive reform
-
- Complete,
consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile model of
gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and
enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and training
is possible. Where state laws have been reformed to license and train
good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and
homicide have fallen. [11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns
benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in
advance who is carrying a concealed weapon.
-
- Fear mongering and
the gun control lobby
-
- In opposing
progressive reforms that restore our rights to self- protection, the
anti-self-defence lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to
run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn
into murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would
collapse, and that many innocent people would be killed [26,27] In
Florida, the anti- self-defence lobby claimed that blood would run in
the streets of "Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State" --- but we do
not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or
political histrionics. We can examine the data.
-
- Data, not histrionics
-
- One-third of
Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed laws to
allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their homes.
[26,27] In those states crime rates are lower for every category of
crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. [11] Homicide, assault,
and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50%
lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% lower. [11] The
reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the
mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defence lobby. In fact, the data
suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens, more
guns "on the street" offer a considerable benefit to society - saving
lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of community
policing.
-
- As of 12/31/94,
Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent person had
been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years
post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for
misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated
with any injury whatsoever. [27] In opposing reform, fear is often
expressed that "everyone would be packing guns," but, after reform,
most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%)
of qualified citizens. [27]
-
- Notwithstanding gun
control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the observed reality was
that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators fear an
unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they fear
apprehension by police [34] or fear our timid and porous criminal
justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by
predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens,
tourists are unarmed.
-
- Those who advocate
restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if it saves only
one life." There have been matched state pair analyses, crime trend
studies, and California county- by-county research [27] demonstrating
that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to carry
concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many lives,
so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives is
truly their motivation.
-
- The right
-
- Importantly, the
proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail to note that
controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are inappropriate to a
constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there be no doubt.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual right to
keep and bear arms. [35] It is specifically the "weapons of war" -
militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second
Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to
arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal
government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done
little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the
Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights
became politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken
over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil
rights guaranteed to African Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?
-
- Besides Second
Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and bear arms,
there are Ninth, [36] Tenth, [35] and Fourteenth Amendment, [37] as
well as "natural right" [38] guarantees to self-protection.
-
- Since 1980, of
thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court case law
and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five support the
individual right view and only four support the "collective right only"
view [39] (and three of these four are authored or co-authored by
employees of the anti-self-defence lobby). One would never guess such a
legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the
right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun
prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their
"collective right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the
twentieth century "gun control" debate - a concept of which neither the
Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had
any inkling.
-
- California and
Concealed Weapons
-
- California has been
studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest rates of
concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder and the
counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the
lowest rates of murder. [27]
-
- It has also been
noted that current California law gives considerable discretion to
police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of Concealed
Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of that
discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the
affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In
California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even
though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from
violence.
-
- Conclusion
-
- The police do not
have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do not schedule
their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police cannot be
where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They can
only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the
predators.
-
- There have been
state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and crime trend
studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens to protect
themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The
anti-self defence lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will
"save only one life." Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that
saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun
control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest.
-
- Will Stockton base
its policy on experience and sound data? or will Stockton fall prey to
misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative false imagery? [40]
-
- We beg you. Let
Stockton's good citizens protect themselves, their loved ones, and
their livelihoods. The ordinance before you costs no money and it will
save many lives.
-
- [1] Leape LL. "Error
in Medicine." JAMA. 1994; 272(23): 1851-57. Back to the top
-
- [2] Suter E. "Guns
in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the
Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back to the top
-
- [3] Kleck G. Point
Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
Back to the top
-
- [4] Suter EA, Waters
WC, Murray GB, et al. "Violence in America - Effective Solutions."
Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. Spring 1995,
forthcoming. Back to the top
-
- [5] Fingerhut LA,
Ingram DD, Feldman JJ. "Firearm Homicide Among Black Teenage Males in
Metropolitan Counties: Comparison of Death Rates in Two Periods, 1983
through 1985 and 1987 through 1989." JAMA. 1992; 267:3054-8. Back to
the top
-
- [6] Hammett M,
Powell KE, O?Carroll PW, Clanton ST. "Homicide Surveillance - United
States, 1987 through 1989." MMWR. 41/SS-3. May 29,1992. Back to the top
-
- [7] FBI. Uniform
Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1991. Washington DC: US
Government Printing Office. 1992 Back to the top
-
- [8] National Safety
Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1993.
Back to the top [9] Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G.
"Reducing Firearm Injuries." Issues in Science and Technology. Spring
1991: 73-9. Back to the top
-
- [10] Christoffel KK.
"Towards Reducing Pediatric Injuries From Firearms: Charting a
Legislative and Regulatory Course." Pediatrics. 1992; 88:294-300. Back
to the top
-
- [11] Federal Bureau
of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports Crime
in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US Government Printing
Office. 1994. Table 5. Back to the top
-
- [12] Dawson JB and
Lantern PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics statisticians. "Murder in
Families." Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department
of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7. Back to the top
-
- [13] US Bureau of
Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988." Washington
DC: US Department of Justice. 1993. Back to the top
-
- [14] Narloch R.
Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA: California Bureau of
Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4. Back to the top
-
- [15] Mulvihill D et
al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on Individual Acts of
Violence." Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1969. p 532.
Back to the top
-
- [16] Wheeler ED and
Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A
Prevention and Management Guide.? Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993. Back to
the top
-
- [17] Kellermann AL.
and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related
Deaths in the Home.? N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60. Back to the top
-
- [18] Kellermann AL,
Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for
homicide in the home.? N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91. Back to
the top
-
- [19] Japenga A. "Gun
Crazy.? San Francisco Examiner. This World supplement. April 3, 1994.
p. 7-13 at 11. Back to the top
-
- [20] Max W and Rice
DP. "Shooting in the Dark: Estimating the Cost of Firearm Injuries.?
Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85. Back to the top
-
- [21] Nieto M,
Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. "Firearm-Related Violence in California:
Incidence and Economic Costs.? Sacramento CA: California Research
Bureau, California State Library. October 1994. Back to the top
-
- [22] McGonigal MD,
Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood PB. "Urban Firearms
Deaths: A Five-Year Perspective.? J Trauma. 1993; 35(4): 532-36.
-
- Back to the top
-
- [23] Hutson HR,
Anglin D, and Pratss MJ. "Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed in
Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles.? N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 324-27.
Back to the top
-
- [24] Zedlewski EW.
Making Confinement Decisions - Research in Brief. Washington DC:
National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. July 1987.
Back to the top
-
- [25] United Press.
"China seizes 120,000 guns.? October 21, 1994. Back to the top
-
- [26] Cramer C and
Kopel D. Concealed Handgun Permits for Licensed Trained Citizens: A
Policy that is Saving Lives. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue
Paper #14-93. 1993. Back to the top
-
- [27] Cramer C and
Kopel D. "Shall Issue?: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws.
Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994. Back
to the top
-
- [28] Aborn R,
President of Handgun Control Inc. Letter to the Editor. Washington
Post. September 30, 1994. Back to the top
-
- [29] Thomson
Charles, Associate Director for Law Enf Back to the top
-
- [30] Halbrook SP.
"Another Look at the Brady Law." Washington Post. October 8, 1994. p
A-18. Back to the top
-
- [31] Howlett D.
"Jury Still Out on Success of the Brady Law." USA Today. December 28,
1994. p A-2. Back to the top
-
- [32] Harris J,
Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice. Statement to the
Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary,
US Gouse of Representatives concerning Federal Firearms Prosecutions.
September 20, 1994. Back to the top
-
- [33] Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, US Department of the Treasury. ATF
News.. Washington DC: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
FY-93-38. 1993. Back to the top
-
- [34] Wright JD and
Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their
Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. Back to the top
-
- [35] Suter EA,
Morgan RE, Cottrol RJ, et al. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - A
Primer for Physicians." Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Spring 1995, forthcoming. Back to the top
-
- [36] Johnson NJ.
"Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individual Right to Arms Viewed
through the Ninth Amendment." Rutgers Law Journal. Fall 1992; 24 (1):
1-81. Back to the top
-
- [37] Amar AR. "The
Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1992;
101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.; Back to the top
-
- [38] Kates D. "The
Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection." Constitutional
Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104. Back to the top
-
- [39] Articles
supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W. "The
Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms." Duke Law Journal.
1994; 43: 6.; Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth
Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9:
87-104.; Scarry E. "War and the Social Contract: The Right to Bear
Arms." Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257-1316.; Williams DL.
"Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second
Amendment" Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.; Cottrol RJ and Diamond
RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration."
The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61.; Amar AR. "The
Bill of Rights as a Constitution" Yale Law Journal. 1991; 100 (5):
1131-1210.; Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" Yale Law
Journal. 1989; 99:637-659.; Kates D. "The Second Amendment: A
Dialogue." Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:143.; Malcolm JL.
Essay Review. George Washington U. Law Review. 1986; 54: 452-464.;
Fussner FS. Essay Review. Constitutional Commentary. 1986; 3: 582-8.;
Shalhope RE. "The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic." Law and
Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:125-141.; Halbrook S. "What the Framers
Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment." Law and
Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:151-162.; Kates D. "Handgun Prohibition
and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment." Michigan Law Review.
1983; 82:203-73. Halbrook S. "The Right to Bear Arms in the First State
Bills of Rights: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, and
Massachusetts." Vermont Law Review 1985; 10: 255-320.; Halbrook S. "The
Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming
Militias, and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso Law Review. 1991;
26:131-207.; Tahmassebi SB. "Gun Control and Racism." George Mason
Univ. Civil Rights Law Journal. Winter 1991; 2(1):67-99.; Reynolds.
"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Tennessee Constitution."
Tennessee Law Review. Winter 1994; 61:2. Bordenet TM. "The Right to
Possess Arms: the Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment."
U.W.L.A. L. Review. 1990; 21:1.-30.; Moncure T. "Who is the Militia -
The Virginia Ratifying Convention and the Right to Bear Arms." Lincoln
Law Review. 1990; 19:1-25.; Lund N. "The Second Amendment, Political
Liberty and the Right to Self-Preservation." Alabama Law Review 1987;
39:103.-130.; Morgan E "Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and
Unconstitutional." American Journal of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.;
Dowlut, R. "Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms." Univ.
Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.; Halbrook SP. "Encroachments of
the Crown on the Liberty of the Subject: Pre-Revolutionary Origins of
the Second Amendment." Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.;
Hardy DT. "The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of
Rights." Journal of Law and Politics. Summer 1987; 4(1):1-62.; Hardy
DT. "Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the
Second Amendment." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986;
9:559-638.; Dowlut R. "The Current Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing
Arms." Univ. Baltimore Law Forum. 1984; 15:30-32.; Malcolm JL. "The
Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition."
Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Winter 1983; 10(2):285-314.;
Dowlut R. "The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection
of Judges Reign?" Oklahoma Law Review. 1983; 36:65-105.; Caplan DI.
"The Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms: A Recent Judicial
Trend." Detroit College of Law Review. 1982; 789-823.; Halbrook SP. "To
Keep and Bear 'Their Private Arms'" Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982;
10(1):13-39.; Gottlieb A. "Gun Ownership: A Constitutional Right."
Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.; Gardiner R. "To Preserve
Liberty -- A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Northern
Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.; Kluin KF. Note. "Gun Control:
Is It A Legal and Effective Means of Controlling Firearms in the United
States?" Washburn Law Journal 1982; 21:244-264.; Halbrook S. "The
Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments." George Mason U.
Civil Rights Law Review. 1981; 4:1-69. Wagner JR. "Comment: Gun Control
Legislation and the Intent of the Second Amendment: To What Extent is
there an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms?" Villanova Law Review.
1992; 37:1407-1459. The following treatments in book form also conclude
that the individual right position is correct: Malcolm JL. To Keep and
Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge MA:
Harvard U. Press. 1994.; Cottrol R. Gun Control and the Constitution (3
volume set). New York City: Garland. 1993.; Cottrol R and Diamond R.
"Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms" in Bodenhamer D and Ely J.
After 200 Years; The Bill of Rights in Modern America. Indiana U.
Press. 1993.; Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court.
Oxford U. Press. 1992. (entry on the Second Amendment); Cramer CE. For
the Defence of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and
Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Westport
CT: Praeger Publishers. 1994. Foner E and Garrity J. Reader's Companion
to American History. Houghton Mifflin. 1991. 477-78. (entry on "Guns
and Gun Control"); Kates D. "Minimalist Interpretation of the Second
Amendment" in E. Hickok (ed.), The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and
Current Understanding. Univ. Virginia Press. 1991.; Halbrook S. "The
Original Understanding of the Second Amendment." in Hickok E (editor)
The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding.
Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991. 117-129.; Young DE. The
Origin of the Second Amendment. Golden Oak Books. 1991.; Halbrook S. A
Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and
Constitutional Guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.; Levy LW. Original Intent
and the Framers' Constitution. Macmillan. 1988.; Hardy D. Origins and
Development of the Second Amendment. Blacksmith. 1986.; Levy LW, Karst
KL, and Mahoney DJ. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New
York: Macmillan. 1986. (entry on the Second Amendment); Halbrook S.
That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right.
Albuquerque, NM: U. New Mexico Press. 1984.; Marina. "Weapons,
Technology and Legitimacy: The Second Amendment in Global Perspective."
and Halbrook S. "The Second Amendment as a Phenomenon of Classical
Political Philosophy." -- both in Kates D (ed.). Firearms and Violence.
San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute. 1984.; U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the
Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session.
February 1982. regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment: Aynes
RL. "On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law
Journal. 1993; 103:57-104.; The minority supporting a collective right
only view: Ehrman K and Henigan D. "The Second Amendment in the 20th
Century: Have You Seen Your Militia Lately?" Univ. Dayton LawJReview.
1989; 15:5-58 and Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment."
Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. -- both written by
paid general counsel of Handgun Control, Inc.; Fields S. "Guns, Crime
and the Negligent Gun Owner." Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982;
10(1): 141-162. (article by non-lawyer lobbyist for the National
Coalition to Ban Handguns); and Spannaus W. "State Firearms Regulation
and the Second Amendment." Hamline Law Review. 1983; 6:383-408. In
addition, see: Beschle. "Reconsidering the Second Amendment:
Constitutional Protection for a Right of Security." Hamline Law Review.
1986; 9:69. (conceding that the Amendment does guarantee a right of
personal security, but arguing that personal security can
constitutionally be implemented by banning and confiscating all guns).
Though not in the legal literature, for arguably the most scholarly
treatment supporting the "collective right only" view, see: Cress LD.
"An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear
Arms." J. Am. History 1984; 71:22-42. Back to the top
-
- [40] Kates DB.
"Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle over Gun Control" in
Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 1992. Carolina Academic
Press. 1992
-
