- * 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 defense. Using a gun for protection
results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of
defense 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 dueling 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-defense 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 offenses. [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-defense 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 honor 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 honor 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. Misdemeanor 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
labeled 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-defense 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-defense 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-defense 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-defense 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-selfdefense 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 defense 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 Defense 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
-
- http://www.2asisters.org/education/ninemyths.htm
-
-
- <http://www.rense.com/general32/nine.htm>http://www.rense.com/general32/nine.htm
|
