- * 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
|
