This is an electronic packet of information to use to write your Research Paper. Think of this packet like a cafeteria – you will select those items from it that you want to use in your Research Paper and leave all of the other items.

From this packet you are to select the BEST pieces of particulars to provide perfect proof that your Claim (thesis) is correct. Your quotes, your block quotes and your paraphrases will all come from the material in this packet. Nothing will be documented in your paper that is not in this packet. You are NOT to use information from any other sources; your “research” has been done for you – it is this packet, and only this packer. The packet contains a variety of information. Some of which you will not be able to use because it will not support your claim. Remember to select the best proof. The Research Paper IS TO BE YOUR WRITING AND YOUR IDEAS, SUPPORTED BY TEXTUAL SPECIFICS FROM THESE SOURCES.

You may not be able to write a complete Works Cited page entry for every text in this electronic packet, but remember: MLA rules state that if an item is missing that would usually go into an entry for the Works Cited page, the writer ignores the missing piece and created an entry without the missing information. Are you asking yourself why won’t you know all the information to write a complete entry? Only the information given at the top of each of the first pages of each piece of information (some information may take more than one page) can be used. Remember, using MLA rules – if a piece of information is not provided, ignore it and move to list the next piece of information that you do have.

If you have a question, ask in class….e-mail me… stop in before school or after school. Remember that famous saying by Jim Rohn: “Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishments." Don’t put off working on this paper.

We will go to the Media Center to work on this. I strongly suggest that you have a flash-drive, and/or save everything to your space on the school website.

Don’t waste time. This is a big project and worth many points.

You can do this!

Mrs. C

2014 AP English Language/ Hon. Am Lit Synthesis Paper

Question 3: Federal Government Gun Control

Gun politics is a controversial area of American politics that is primarily defined by the actions of two groups: gun control and gun rights activists. These groups often disagree on the interpretation of laws and court cases related to firearms as well as about the effects of gun control on crime and public safety. Since the 1990s, debates regarding firearm availability and gun violence in the U.S. have been characterized by concerns about the right to bear arms, such as found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the responsibility of the government to serve the needs of its citizens and to prevent crime and deaths. Gun control supporters say that broad or unrestricted gun rights inhibit the government from fulfilling that responsibility.self-defense Gun rights supporters promote firearms for , hunting, and sporting activities.Centers for Disease Control Gun control advocates state that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals results in safer communities, while gun rights advocates state that firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens reduces crime. A 2003 study by the called for further study because there was insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws with regards to violent outcomes. Gun legislation in the United States is constrained by judicial interpretations of the Constitution. In 1789, the United States adopted the Second Amendment, and in 1868 adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. The effect of those two amendments on gun politics was the subject of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010, that upheld the right for individuals to possess guns for self-defense.

Carefully read the following 15 sources, including the introductory information for each source. Then synthesize information from at least three (3) of the sources and incorporate it into a coherent, well-developed essay that argues a clear position on whether the United States Federal Government has the legal right to pass laws controlling/ limiting the ownership of guns by private citizens in America or private citizens in American should not be limited by federal laws in their ownership of guns.

Make sure your argument is central; use the sources to illustrate and support your reasoning. Avoid merely summarizing the sources. Indicate clearly which sources you are drawing from, whether through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. In the paper, you may cite the sources as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the descriptions in parentheses. In the Works Cited, you may NOT cite sources as Source A, Source B, etc.; the Works Cited page must be in alphabetical order – using the information needed from the box for each source (author, title, etc.). Remember, the “website” information is given only for your information; websites are not given in a paper or in Works Cited page.

Source A (Agresti )

Source B (“Information” )

Source C (“Background” )

Source D (“International”)

Source E ( “Gun Control Controversy”)

Source F ( Kopel )

Source G ( Marois )

Source H ( Whitney )

Source I (Rosenfeld )

Source J (Wolfgang)

Source K (Ballsep)

Source L (O’Mara)

Source M (Caplan-Bricker )

Source N (Harvard)

Source O ( Millstein)

Gun Control Facts

Introductory Notes

This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available. Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[1] but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results. Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility.

General Facts

* Firearms are generally classified into three broad types: (1) handguns, (2) rifles, and (3) shotguns.[3] Rifles and shotguns are both considered "long guns." * A semi-automatic firearm fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled and automatically loads another bullet for the next pull of the trigger. A fully automatic firearm (sometimes called a "machine gun") continuously fires bullets as long as the trigger is pulled.[

Ownership

* As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people. * Based on production data from firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns. * Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:

Households With a Gun

Adults Owning a Gun

Adults Owning a Handgun

Percentage

40-45%

30-34%

17-19%

Number

47-53 million

70-80 million

40-45 million

* A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership:

Category

Percentage Owning

a Firearm

Households

42%

Individuals

30%

Male

47%

Female

13%

White

33%

Nonwhite

18%

Republican

41%

Independent

27%

Democrat

23%

Page 1 of 2

* In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons:

Protection Against Crime

67%

Target Shooting

66%

Hunting

41%

Crime and Self-Defense

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

* Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."

└ Vulnerability to Violent Crime

* At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.

* A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once

* A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."

Page 2 of 2

This page

is purposefully

left blank

between

DIFFERENT articles that

you may use

for

your paper.

Information: Gun Control

The headlines could not be believed: two teenage boys had opened fire in their Colorado high school, killing 12 fellow students and a teacher. That incident at Columbine, on April 20, 1999, following a number of other shootings in schools and workplaces, has led to an increase in the number of people calling for strict gun control legislation. Gun control is a term that describes the use of law to limit people's access to handguns, shotguns, rifles, and other firearms, through passing statutes that require, for example, gun purchasers to undergo background checks for criminal records, for guns to be registered, or a number of other methods. In the United States, gun control is a hotly contested political issue that can make or break the careers of politicians. The use of firearms is also a health issue, because more than 35,000 people die each year after being shot.

Statistics

The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, keeps track of injuries and fatalities resulting from firearms. The NCIPC reported that in 1994, there were 38,505 firearm-related deaths. These included: more than 17,800 homicides; more than 18,700 suicides; more than 1,300 unintentional, firearms-related deaths related to firearms. Nationwide, approximately 70 percent of people who commit suicide do so with a firearm. Among young people, the impact of guns is huge. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each day in the United States, fourteen people under the age of 19 die in gun-related incidents. The rate of firearm-related deaths for Americans age 14 and younger is twelve times that of children in other industrialized nations combined. In addition, the NCIPC estimates that there were approximately three gun-related injuries for every death--a rough figure of 115,515 injuries for the year. Also according to the NCIPC, in 1990, firearm injuries cost over $20.4 billion--directly, for hospital and other medical care, as well as indirectly, for long-term disability and premature death, and at least 80% of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayers.

How the U.S. Compares to the Rest of the World

The United States is home to a tremendous number of guns. Current estimates place the number of guns in the United States at between 200 million and 250 million. In the period between 1968 and 1992, gun ownership in the U.S. increased 135 percent--and during that same period, handgun ownership increase 300percent. The 17 million residents of Texas alone own 68 million guns. The United States has one of the highest murder rates in the world, and leads western nations in homicides. More Americans are shot in one day than Japanese are shot in an entire year. Whereas other nations, such as Great Britain, have moved to ban handguns and assault rifles after shooting incidents, the United States has not done so. In Australia, just two weeks after a shooting at Port Arthur that killed 35 people, the nation's various levels of government agreed to ban weapons like those used in the attack. Similarly, Great Britain banned handguns after a man broke into a Scottish school and opened fire, killing 16 children.

Other nations treat gun control as a public health issue, Robert Spitzer of the State University of New York at Cortland, told ABC News. "There is general agreement in other nations that the government has the right to engage in regulation that is good public policy protecting the health and safety of the populace," he said. However, in the United States, strong political interest groups such as the National Rifle Association oppose gun control and say that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own weapons.

History of the Issue

Americans are fiercely protective of their right to own guns. The founders of this country believed that this "right to bear arms" was so important that they made it the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the founders wrote. Today there is considerable argument over just what the founders intended by their words. Did they mean to provide only for armed units, such as the Army and National Guard, to protect us from invasion, or did they mean that each individual has a right to a gun? Both gun-control supporters and gun-rights advocates have their legal arguments to support their side, but the federal courts have upheld all laws regulating gun ownership when the laws have been challenged on the basis of violating the second amendment.

Page 1 of 4

In the early days of the American colonies, nearly every settler owned a gun; guns were a more obvious necessity for members of an expanding nation. However, as the European population became more settled here, as the frontier was driven westward

and the native populations driven out, fewer people owned guns. As historian Michael Bellesiles notes, during the time between the American Revolution and the Civil War, no more than one-tenth of the American population owned guns. They became more a part of American culture due to the marketing efforts of gun manufacturer Samuel Colt, who played on the fears of the middle-class to sell weapons for "self-defense"; the end of the Civil War also played a role in the increase of gun ownership, as many soldiers returned home with their weapons in hand.

In 1876, the Supreme Court ruled, in United States v. Cruikshank, that neither the Constitution nor the Second Amendment grant the right to bear arms; rather, the Second Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to control firearms. Several other Supreme Court cases (notably U.S. v. Miller, 1939) spoke to gun control during the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s; but overall, gun control was not a major issue or concern. However, that all changed in the 1960s. After the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which banned mail-order gun sales and instituted more stringent licensing requirements for dealers.

After John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981, gun control became the hot issue it is today. Congress passed several laws concerning armor-piercing bullets and automatic weapons. In 1993, President William J. Clinton signed the Brady bill, which requires a five-day waiting period for all handgun purchases. The following year, Congress and President Clinton passed a ban on assault-style weapons and a number of semiautomatic weapons.

The Arguments For and Against Gun Control

Advocates of gun control maintain that by making firearms--especially handguns--more difficult to obtain, the number of shootings (both accidental and deliberate) will be reduced. They also support licensing all persons who own firearms and registering each gun as well. However, just because a gun is registered does not mean that it won't be used in an illegal act. For example, Buford O. Furrow, the man who opened fire at a Los Angeles Jewish community center in 1999, was armed with seven guns, including a Glock 9mm automatic handgun and a custom-made assault rifle--and every one of his guns was registered.

Similarly, Bryan Uyesugi, the man who shot and killed seven employees of the Xerox Corporation in Hawaii on November 2, 1999, had 17 firearms registered. Between June 18, 1990 and November 3, 1999, workplace shootings caused the deaths of 116 people. Just registering a gun does not guarantee that its owner will not use it to commit a crime. Advocates of gun registrations say that by having to register their weapons with the federal government, gun owners will be more careful in making sure that their guns do not become stolen, or that they do not sell or trade their guns to a criminal. Opponents fear that one day the federal government may use gun registrations against gun owners and confiscate all registered weapons.

As mentioned previously, Americans vary widely in their attitudes toward gun control. According to various polls and studies, residents of New England and the mid-Atlantic states tend to be strongly in favor of gun control; they are far less likely to have ever owned a gun than are other Americans. While two out of five Southerners and one out of three Westerners have owned guns, fewer than one in seven residents of the Northeast have. Meanwhile, Southerners are more likely to have a gun at home and elsewhere (such as in the car), and they are more likely to shoot to kill. Westerners are most likely to hear gunshots. As a group, residents of the mountain states are the most certain that guns deter crime. Midwesterners are most concerned about crime. As might be expected given these regional variables, gun control laws vary from state to state. For example, Arizona residents are not required to register their weapons, and they may carry concealed weapons. (A concealed weapon is one that is hidden from view, such as under a shirt or in an ankle holster.)In Massachusetts, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon, and gun owners must be licensed and their weapons registered, even if the gun is used solely for target shooting.

There is great debate as to whether allowing concealed weapons decreases or increases crime. Some supporters of concealed weapons reason that people are less likely to attempt to commit a crime when they face the possibility that the potential victim may be armed. Detractors say that carrying a weapon makes a person more likely to use it--particularly in anger, such as after being cut off in traffic. Currently, there is no nationwide law that requires gun owners to be licensed. The federal government has left that up to the individual states.

Self-Defense or Self-Destruction?

Supporters of guns maintain the need for the weapons as a means of self-defense. Through surveys of jailed criminals, sociologists have found that 40 percent of criminals say they would not commit a crime they were considering if they thought the potential victim was armed. In addition, criminals who attempted break-ins of occupied homes succeeded only 14 percent of the time when the homeowner was armed--compared to 33 percent of the time when the homeowner was not armed.

page 2 of 4

Researcher Gary Kleck of Florida State University has done a number of surveys regarding the successful use of guns in self-defense, and he estimates that American use guns for self-defense between 800,000 and 2.45 million times each year. They fire less than one-quarter of the time.

However, figures from the Census Bureau maintain that the numbers of Americans defending themselves with guns is much lower--closer to 80,000 times per year. And while having a gun in the house may make the gun owner feel more secure and safe, the problem with having guns in the home, argue gun control supporters, is that they are a temptation both for children and adults. Children die every year by being accidentally shot while playing with guns, or by being nearby when someone else is playing with them. Such tragedies can occur when the parents keep a loaded gun in the house--particularly in a night-table drawer--for self-defense. The child finds the gun, and tragedy follows. In such cases, it is important that the gun be stored unloaded, with a trigger lock, and with its ammunition stored separately from it.

Guns are also often used in domestic squabbles. Prompted by the 1984 shooting death of singer Marvin Gaye (who was killed by his father after a family argument), researcher Arthur Kellermann began studying the role of the firearm in domestic incidents. His results, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that for each homicide that was committed in self-defense in the home, there were 37 suicides, 1.3 accidental deaths, and 4.6 criminal homicides. Another of his studies, which tracked domestic homicides in three cities over a five-year period, found that a home that contained guns were three times more likely to be the site of a homicide than a home without guns. Under the influence of strong emotions, alcohol, or drugs, people often do things they might not normally do otherwise--including drawing a gun on a family member and pulling the trigger. Experts note that it's important to recognize the social influences that may drive people to gun violence. For example, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two teens who opened fire at Columbine High School, were described as outsiders. Michael Carneal, who opened fire on a prayer group at his West Paducah, Kentucky, high school, killing three and wounding five in 1997, was similarly described. In cases like these, or those of Buford Furrow or Bryan Uyesugi, there is rarely a single cause. It would be naive to say that Harris and Klebold and Carneal shot 16 people in their separate rampages solely because they had guns; they shot those people because something inside them that would normally have prevented such an occurrence, broke down.

Experts on both sides of the gun control issue urge people to consider their personal situation when thinking about bringing a gun into the home. Are there children or young people in residence who may find the gun a temptation? Is there someone living in the house who has problems controlling his or her temper? Someone who has been depressed and may be suicidal? In any of these cases, experts urge potential gun owners to think twice before introducing a weapon into the equation.

Controversial Measures for Control

Numerous laws and regulations have been passed in an effort to control guns. In June 1999, Connecticut legislators passed a bill that allows police to seize the weapons of anyone whom they believe presents a threat to him- or herself and others. The law went into effect October 1, and on November 1, police in Greenwich, Connecticut, made the first seizure under the new law, raising a house and taking 11 guns--six handguns, two rifles, a shotgun, an assault rifle, and a submachine gun--from a 45-year-old man. The man, Thompson Bosee, told the Hartford Courant newspaper that he would challenge the seizure and the law's constitutionality. Part of controlling where guns go is controlling the people who sell them. Massachusetts recently enacted a law that requires gun dealers to maintain their businesses in separate buildings from their homes--no longer allowing "kitchen table" gun sales.

Possible Solutions

It seems unlikely that the United States will ever ban firearms. However, there are measures that both gun supporters and gun detractors do agree on that may help cut down on gun violence.

Trigger locks. Trigger locks are small, inexpensive devices that fit over a gun's trigger and make it impossible to fire. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, "Mandating locking devices for each firearm owned is a logical first step in controlling guns by limiting who has access to firing them."

Education. Just as people aren't allowed on the road until they have been taught to drive a car, so people should not be allowed to own a gun until they successfully complete a gun education course, say supporters. Besides courses that teach adults the rules of handling and storing guns, so too are there courses that teach children that guns are not toys. Gun education programs are taught by such diverse groups as the National Rifle Association and the Boy Scouts of America, and more than 10 million children have completed the NRA's Eddie Eagle safety course. By teaching kids a healthy respect for guns and the damage they can do, perhaps the number of accidental shootings that claim so many young lives can be reduced.

page 3 of 4

Background checks. The Brady bill, the national gun-control legislation named for James Brady, the presidential assistant wounded in the attack on President Reagan, requires instant background checks on all purchasers. To date, this system has prevented more than 200,000 gun purchases by people who had been in mental institutions, been dishonorably discharged from military service, were fugitives, or had a history of domestic abuse.

The main drawback to this system is that all police records are not yet available in a nationwide database, making it possible that someone will fall through the cracks. It also does not cover the "secondary" market of private sales at gun shows and flea markets, where guns can be bought without a mandatory waiting period or a background check.

Legislation controlling guns bought by legitimate people--hunters or enthusiasts--does not reach such private-deal gun sales. Nor does it control stolen guns, or guns purchased by licensed owners for resale to anyone--including criminals. How can this aspect of the gun issue be dealt with?

Some have suggested that tougher enforcement of existing weapons laws is needed. For example, it is illegal to possess drugs and a weapon. For years, authorities did not enforce this law. But Richmond, Virginia, started using these laws to crack down of people apt to be involved in criminal acts. The apparent result has been that the homicide rate fell by nearly a third; 215 violators are in jail, and 512 guns have been seized.

Technology may be able to help, too. Scientists are working on developing a so-called "smart gun." This gun would be able to be fired only by its owner. Two means of recognition are currently being tested. One method uses biometric technology to recognize the fingerprints of the authorized user. The gun would recognize the fingerprints of the person holding it, and if the prints did not match the ones in its memory, it would not go off. The other uses a device called a radio transponder that allows the gun to be fired only within a given distance of the device; if a criminal should wrest a police officer's gun away and try to fire it, the smart gun would not go off because it was too far from the device. A prototype model had the radio transponder in a wristband; plans are to make it small enough to be worn as a ring. Research on smart guns began in the early 1990s, and the weapons may be available in 2001. For the time being, however, it looks as if the debate over gun control will continue. America may never become an unarmed nation, but with stronger enforcement of criminal laws, education of new gun owners, and responsible care and storage of their weapons by gun owners, perhaps the current death toll of almost 100 Americans a day will one day fall.

Page 4 of 4

This page

is purposefully

left blank

between

DIFFERENT articles that

you may use

for

your paper.

Background on Gun Control

Statistics on Gun Ownership:

40% of all US homes have guns

81% of Americans say that gun control will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate

to vote for.

91% of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership;

57% of Americans say that there should be major restrictions or a ban.

Child-Safety Locks

In 1996, 140 children died after being accidentally shot.

About 1,500 children are hurt by guns every year.

"Trigger Locks" require entering a combination to use the gun (or some other locking method); they are intended to reduce inadvertent use by children or other unauthorized users.

Background Checks

The "Gun-Show Loophole" means that there are no background checks when purchasing guns in a private transaction.

Guns sold at gun shows through dealers ARE subject to background checks; only those sold privately are not.

Right to Bear Arms

The Supreme Court ruled in 1939, in a case called "US v. Miller," that the 2nd amendment only protects guns suitable for a well-regulated militia -- for example, sawed-off shotguns can be banned because they're not "ordinary military equipment".

Since 1939, the Supreme Court has not heard any further 2nd amendment cases; the most recent ruling prior to “Heller”, in 1997, overturned part of the 1993 Brady Bill, but did not address 2nd amendment rights.

“Heller” refers to a ruling on the issue of “individual rights”. The Supreme Court ruled, in the 2008 case called “District of Columbia v. Heller”, that the 2nd Amendment does define an individual right to gun ownership, as opposed to a “collective right” for a state-run and state-armed National Guard.

Much discretion was left to the states and to Congress, but Heller opens up the issue to further Supreme Court cases.

Hence, gun control issues are still primarily the subject of Congressional legislation.

Gun Control Buzzwords

The biggest component of the Gun Control debate is whether existing gun laws are sufficient, or whether more gun laws are needed.

Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.

Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.

Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.

page 1 of 2

Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.

Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.

Positive mentions of the NRA (the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun rights lobbying group) implies support of gun rights, while opposing the NRA or "taking on the gun lobby" implies support of gun restrictions.

Amendment II to the US Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (1791)

page 2 0f 2

This page

is purposefully

left blank

between

DIFFERENT articles that

you may use

for

your paper.

International Gun Laws

The movement of guns across borders has become a major focal point for the War on Terrorism. Some of these efforts depend on national information on gun production and transfer. Below you can compare U.S. guns registration requirements with those of other nations.

The law enforcement agency INTERPOL has stepped up its efforts with a new tracking system, Interpol Weapons and Explosives Tracking System (IWETS). IWETS is currently the only international analytical database designed to collate information on illegal firearms trafficking. IWETS provides current indexes of firearms manufactures and other information that facilitates the identification of firearms. IWETS is also the only international system for stolen and recovered weapons.

The UN General Assembly established a Terrorism Prevention Branch (TPB) in 1999 as an arm of the Vienna-based UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP). The group aims to combat the illegal traffic in arms — as noted in GUN LAND, 11 percent of illegal guns recovered worldwide came from the state of Florida. Check their Web site to see a list of the most common weapons used by terrorists and lists gunmakers.

There are also several firearms-related bills in front of the U.S. Congress.

Country

Licensing of gun owners?

Registration of firearms?

Other Restrictions

Households with firearms (%)

Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000

Japan

Yes

Yes

Prohibits handguns with few exceptions

0.6 %

0.07

Singapore

Yes

Yes

Most handguns and rifles prohibited

0.01%

0.24

U.K.

Yes

Yes

Prohibits handguns

4.0 %

0.4

Netherlands

Yes

Yes

1.9 %

0.55

Spain

Yes

Yes

Some handguns and rifles are prohibited

13.1 %

0.74

Germany

Yes

Yes

8.9 %

1.44

Italy

Yes

Yes

N/A

2.27

Israel

Yes

Yes

N/A

2.56

Australia

Yes

Yes

Banned semiautomatics unless good reason

16.0 %

2.94

Canada

Yes

All guns by 2003

Assault weapons and some handguns

26%

3.95

France

Yes

Yes, except sporting rifles

22.6 %

5.48

Switzerland

Yes

Yes

27.2 %

5.74 6.2

Finland

Yes

Yes

50 %

6.65

USA

in some states

Handguns in some states

Some weapons in some states

41%

13.47

Source: W. Cukier, "Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International Context," Chronic Diseases in Canada, April, 1998 (statistics updated to reflect most recent figures, January 2001).

Pro-Gun Rights

Pro-Gun Control

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate [State] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit to. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

-James Madison, Federalist Papers, Article 46 January 29, 1788

"In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century. Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues."

- Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, The Second Amendment

"Mightn't it be better in those areas of high crime to arm the homeowner and the shopkeeper, teach him how to use his weapons and put the word out to the underworld that it is no longer totally safe to rob and murder? One wonders indeed if the rising crime rate isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has any means of protection. No one knows how many crimes are committed because the criminal knows he has a soft touch. No one knows how many stores have been left alone because the criminals knew them to be guarded by a man with a gun."

- President Ronald Reagan, Letter to the Editor, GUN & AMMO, 1975

"Assault weapons in the hands of civilians exist for no reason but to inspire fear and wreak deadly havoc on our streets"

- President Bill Clinton, Weekly Radio Address to the Nation, Saturday, November 15, 1997; As quoted in THE WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 16, 1997 on Page A12.

"The job of the anti-gun think tanks is to come up with headlines that will change public opinion. If they have to fudge the numbers, they will do so."

- Joseph P. Tartaro, Second Amendment Foundation President and GUN WEEK Executive Editor

"The Bushmaster XM15 M4 A3 assault rifle used by the Washington, DC-area sniper provides a clear illustration of how and why the federal assault weapons ban needs to be strengthened and renewed…"

- Violence Policy Center press release

"Ownership of weapons makes genocides more difficult to commit...but it takes effective weapons to stop genocide entirely." (original italics)

- From A-Human-Right.com in reference to the Nazi Holocaust perpetrated against the Jews.

"Fear, physical pain, and death are just part of the price Americans pay for the easy access of handguns. It is estimated that the total costs to Americans of gun violence (the vast majority of which involves handguns) is measured in tens of billions of dollars.3 In comparison, the wholesale value of the 1.3 million handguns manufactured in America in 1998 totaled only $370 million."

- Josh Sugarmann from the introduction to EVERY HANDGUN IS AIMED AT YOU

"The danger inherent in this mindset [banning guns because of the possibility of potential harm] is why those very wise men we call the Founding Fathers instilled the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Such a principle prevents the grouping of people into perceived-dangerous groups, and forces us to deal with people as individuals, with individual motives and morals. It is the only way to live in a free society."

- Michael Mitchell of KeepAndBearArms.com

"Homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries committed with guns take a staggering human and economic toll on our society every day. The number of injuries and deaths has risen dramatically since the nation's founding in 1776. Currently, nearly 30,000 Americans die from firearms each year."

- Join Together Online, Overview from the Constitution to Today,

"But, women are the fastest growing segment of gun owners and NRA members. And, what motivates these daughters, mothers and grandmothers to purchase firearms? The answer is elementary; keeping themselves and their loved ones safe."

- Letter to Editor from James Jay Baker, NRA Institute for Legislative Action, in response to an LA TIMES Editorial arguing Republicans should court women voters by supporting gun control measures.

"With nearly one thousand unintentional deaths each year — and perhaps 17,000 nonfatal, unintentional gunshot wounds — redesigning weapons in order to reduce the number of unintentional incidents is reasonable, prudent and has nothing to do with "gun control." It has to do with public safety."

- Doctors Against Handgun Injury, "The Issues: Treating Guns as Consumer Products"

Page 3 of 3

This page

is purposefully

left blank

between

DIFFERENT articles that

you may use

for

your paper.

Gun Control Controversy

What are the latest developments in the U.S. gun control controversy?

In a major victory for gun control opponents, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the 2nd Amendment does protect the strictest forms of gun control by rejecting the argument of a more narrow interpretation - that the right is limited to militias. The ruling does not prevent reasonable efforts at gun control but it does prohibit the kind of outright ban of handguns that has existed in Washington D.C.

Gun control was not a major issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign nor does it appear to be a prominent issue in the 2008 campaign. The percentage of Americans who consider "gun control" as an important issue has declined from 3% to 1%. Fewer Americans are supportive of gun control in general and handgun control in particular. While the issue has dropped in overall public concern, it remains what politicians consider a "wedge issue" as many opponents of gun control are passionate about their right to unfettered gun ownership and may make voting decisions on this issue alone. Gun control opponents raise far more money than do gun control advocates. The 2008 Democratic platform affirms the 2nd Amendment right of Americans to own weapons while supporting the extension of the assault weapon ban and closing the "gun show" loophole. The Republican Platform contains a strong affirmation of the right to own guns and supports the June 2008 Supreme Court decision.

What is the present level of gun control in the United States?

Like many other aspects of public policy, gun control is a matter of federal, state and even local legislation.

Federal Gun Control

The first major gun control initiative was enacted by Congress in 1934 which regulated the sale of fully automatic firearms like machine guns. This legislation was followed in 1938 by a new federal law which required gun sellers to be licensed and which prohibited persons convicted of violent felonies from purchasing guns. No further legislation was passed by Congress until 1968. The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulated imported guns, expanded gun-dealer licensing requirements, and expanded the list of persons not eligible to purchase guns to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, minors, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs. In 1986, federal legislation established mandatory penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a federal crime. Also prohibited were "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing. In 1990, legislation was passed which banned the manufacturing and importation of semi-automatic assault weapons.

In 1994, Congress passed what has been regarded as the most comprehensive effort at national gun control. The "Brady Bill" named for the press aide who was seriously injured in the assassination attempt on President Reagan imposed a five day waiting period for purchasers of handguns and required local law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks of all purchasers. The Supreme Court held that the background check provision was unconstitutional because it infringed on state's rights. Presently, the law has been revised so that the background check is instantly accomplished by gun dealers through a national computer system and there is no longer a waiting period. Also in 1994, Congress passed a ban on certain types of assault weapons. This ban expired in 2004. By a narrow margin, the Senate voted to extend the ban but the House did not take action and the ban was allowed to expire. Efforts to revive the ban have been unsuccessful.

State and local gun control

Guns are additionally regulated by state and local legislation and there is little uniformity among the states. The major regulatory issues are: Page 1 of 14

· Child Access Prevention laws

Many states have passed legislation making it a crime to leave a loaded weapon within easy access of a minor.

· Concealed weapon laws

About seven states prohibit concealed weapons. Many others require an individual to show a need prior to obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. In over half the states, all non-felons are able to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. Only one state, Vermont, has no licensing or permit requirement.

· Regulation of private sales to minors

Under federal law, minors under 18 are prohibited from possessing guns and minor under 21 are prohibited from purchasing guns from dealers. However, unless regulated by state law, minors 18 and over are able to freely purchase weapons through private sales. Currently 21 states either prohibit or substantially regulate this secondary market for minors.

· Regulating all secondary market sales

Over twenty states regulate all secondary sales through registration or licensing requirements. In the states that have no such regulation, the secondary market allows minors and criminals to easily obtain weapons. This is the so-called "gun show" loophole.

· Ban on "assault" weapons

In 1989, California was the first state to ban certain types of automatic weapons. More extensive bans have been enacted in New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut and Maryland.

· "One handgun a month" laws

Many purchasers (felons and minors) have circumvented federal law by purchasing firearms from individuals who have legally made bulk purchases of handguns. Four states (South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and California) have laws that limit legal purchases of handguns to one a month per buyer.

· Ban on "Saturday Night Specials" and other "junk guns"

These are small, easily concealed lightweight guns which are unreliable but have appeal to criminals because of their portability. A minority of states have laws which regulate the purchase and use of these weapons. Additionally, local laws in a number of cities outlaw the possession of these weapons.

· Preemption

The majority of states have laws which prohibit local authorities from passing local gun control ordinances. These "preemption" laws have been supported by the opponents of gun control. Officials in cities which are able to pass such ordinances, such as New York, credit their existence to a dramatic reduction in violent crime.

· Waiting periods

Although background checks are no longer necessary under federal law, about half the states still use state data in addition to federal data to conduct background checks prior to issuing a handgun permit. Eleven of these states impose waiting periods as well.

How many guns are there?

According a 1994 Department of Justice survey, about 35% of American households own 192 million firearms of which handguns constituted 35% of the total. Polling data shows that the actual household ownership rate is higher but also that it declining slightly. Gun sales, has evidenced by Brady background check data, have significantly increased in 2008 and there are reports that they have increased further in 2009 based on concerns that a Democratic administration and Congress would bring in a new era of regulation. Slightly less than half of gun owners own both handguns and shotguns or rifles. The typical gun owner is male, middle class, college educated and lives in a small town or rural area. Gun ownership varies greatly by region and there is a significant correlation between the percentage of handgun ownership and the rate of gun-related homicide.

How effective have gun control efforts been?

It is possible that recent gun control legislation has accomplished some of its goals. Although less than 3% of gun applications have been denied since the enactment of the Brady bill, most of the denials have kept guns from felons. The total amount deaths due to guns significantly decreased in the 1990's but has the rate of decrease has leveled off in this decade. Handgun use is the overwhelming cause of such injuries and fatalities. Because most gun

Page 2 of 14

injuries and deaths result from criminal assault and homicide, part of the decrease is certainly due to the overall

decrease in the crime rate. It is difficult to obtain statistical data regarding the current popularity of handguns in the United States. One indicator, the domestic production of handguns, shows that production decreased in the early years of the 21st century but that it has now again increasing. Overall, handgun ownership in the United States has remained relatively constant in the past three decades. Another indicator is the number of approved Brady background checks.

But gun control activists still believe that it is far to easy for criminals to obtain guns and that an alarming proportion of the population remains armed. Their concern has been fueled by an unprecedented recent rash of school shootings and fatalities. Many experts are blaming this phenomena on violent video games and poor parenting but in each case the youths involved had easy access to the weapons that they used. Gun control advocates support measures which would require trigger locks on all guns and which would apply the provisions of the Brady bill to gun shows. Gun control advocate groups also advocate a federal law authorizing only one handgun purchase per month and raising the age for gun ownership from 18 to 21.

On the other hand, opposition to gun control led by the National Rifle Association (NRA) remains fierce and passionate. These gun owners maintain that an unregulated right to bear arms is guaranteed to citizens by the 2nd amendment and this position received support in a Supreme Court decision issued in 2008 which disallowed a Washington D.C. complete ban on handguns. Opponents of gun control argue that gun owners often use their weapons to deter crime and that handguns are most commonly used for this purpose. Some studies have shown that such defensive use of weapons occurs at a much greater rate than the extent to which weapons are used in criminal activity although the validity of these studies is in dispute. Gun control opponents are generally law abiding citizens who put greater trust in individualism than in the government to protect their safety. They are concerned that each step toward greater gun control will lead to the eventual confiscation of all firearms. Gun control opponent groups spend far more than gun control supporters on campaign contributions.

How do other countries regulate guns?

Almost all major countries have systems for registration of firearms. Most major countries do permit the ownership of handguns. Many countries ban ownership of certain types of weapons although some have no restrictions. No country has anywhere near the rate of gun ownership as in the United States and there is a correspondingly high gun homicide rate. But other countries such as Canada have a significant degree of gun ownership yet a low rate of gun homicide. The Mexican gun homicide rate reflects the drug trafficking problem in that country. Most of the guns involved have been smuggled in from the neighboring United States.

How do Democrats and Republicans differ on gun control?

Generally, Democrats support gun control proposals and Republicans do not although the votes on the Brady bill in 1993 show that this is not a strictly partisan issue. The partisan divide on this issue is somewhat reflected by public opinion. Democrats overwhelmingly support gun control and Republicans are divided on the issue. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, President Bush indicated his support for a trigger lock requirement, raising the age limit, and requiring background checks at gun shows. But no legislation on these issues has been initiated by the White House. In 1999 the Senate narrowly voted to regulate gun shows and more substantially supported a measure for trigger locks but no action was taken by the House with respect to either proposal. In April 2004, the Senate again voted for handgun locks but the House did not consider the measure and the issue has not recently been resurrected. Supporters of gun control measures are instead on the defensive as more recent Congressional votes have increased rather than restricted gun rights. For example, continued Amtrak funding was conditioned on a provision allowing guns to be in checked luggage.

Page 3 of 14

Gun Control Charts

Public Support of Stricter Gun Control 1999-2009

Percentage of Americans Favoring Handgun Ban 1959-2008

Page 4 of 14

Political Funding on Gun Issues

Extension of Assault Weapon Ban

Page 5 of 14

Evaluation of State Gun Control Laws 2008

Page 6 of 14

Gun Ownership in 1994

Page 7 of 14

Households Reporting Gun Ownership 1999-2009

Types of Guns Owned

Page 8 of 14

Rate of Firearm Deaths and Firearm Ownership By State

Reasons for Denial of Gun Purchase Applications By FBI, 1999-2003

Page 9 of 14

Violence-Related Firearm Death Rates per 100,000

Type of Weapon Used in Firearm Deaths in 2003

Page 10 of 14

Cause of Firearm Injury or Death

Handgun Production in the U.S.

Page 11 of 14

Brady Background Check Approvals 1998-2008

International Comparison of Gun Ownership and Gun Homicide Rate

Page 12 of 14

Congressional Vote on the Brady Bill 1993

Senate Vote on Regulating Gun Shows

Page 13 of 14

Senate Vote on Handgun Locks

Permitting Firearms on Checked Amtrak Luggage

Page 14 of 14

This page

is purposefully

left blank

between

DIFFERENT articles that

you may use

for

your paper.

Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control

David B. Kopel, formerly an assistant district attorney in Manhattan, is an attorney in Colorado.

Executive Summary

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Few public policy debates have been as dominated by emotion and misinformation as the one on gun control. Perhaps this debate is so highly charged because it involves such fundamental issues. The calls for more gun restrictions or for bans on some or all guns are calls for significant change in our social and constitutional systems.

Gun control is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons. Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure. It most severely victimizes those who most need weapons for self-defense, such as blacks and women.

The various gun control proposals on today's agenda-- including licensing, waiting periods, and bans on so-called Saturday night specials--are of little, if any, value as crime-fighting measures. Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving. Indeed, persuasive evidence shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to crime.

The gun control debate poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people?

Guns and Crime

Guns as a Cause of Crime

Gun control advocates--those who favor additional legal restrictions on the availability of guns or who want to outlaw certain types of guns--argue that the more guns there are, the more crime there will be. As a Detroit narcotics officer put it, "Drugs are X; the number of guns in our society is Y; the number of kids in possession of drugs is Z. X plus Y plus Z equals an increase in murders."[1] But there is no simple statistical correlation between gun ownership and homicide or other violent crimes. In the first 30 years of this century, U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable, but the homicide rate rose tenfold.[2] Subsequently, between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent.[3]

Switzerland, through its militia system, distributes both pistols and fully automatic assault rifles to all adult males and requires them to store their weapons at home. Further, civilian long-gun purchases are essentially unregulated, and handguns are available to any adult without a criminal record or mental defect. Nevertheless, Switzerland suffers far less crime per capita than the United States and almost no gun crime.

Allowing for important differences between Switzerland and the United States, it seems clear that there is no direct link between the level of citizen gun ownership and the level of gun misuse. Instead of simplistically assuming that the fewer guns there are, the safer society will be, one should analyze the particular costs and benefits of gun ownership and gun control and consider which groups gain and lose from particular policies.

Guns as a Tool against Crime

Several years ago the National Institute of Justice offered a grant to the former president of the American Sociological Association to survey the field of research on gun control. Peter Rossi began his work convinced of the need for strict national gun control. After looking at the data, however, Rossi and his University of Massachusetts colleagues James Wright and Kathleen Daly concluded that there was no convincing proof that gun control curbs crime.[ A follow-up study by Wright and Rossi of serious felons in American prisons provided further evidence that gun control would not impede determined criminals.[ It also indicated that civilian gun ownership does deter some crime. Three-fifths of the prisoners studied said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Two-fifths of them had decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun. Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried the most about armed victims.

Real-world experiences validate the sociologists' findings. In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women actually ended up firing her weapon; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase. During a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque armed citizens patrolled their neighborhoods and shop owners publicly armed themselves; felonies dropped significantly. In March 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring householders to keep a gun at home; house burglaries fell from 65 per year to 26, and to 11 the following year. Similar

Page 1 of 10

publicized training programs for gun-toting merchants sharply reduced robberies in stores in Highland Park, Michigan, and in New Orleans; a grocers organization's gun clinics produced the same result in Detroit.[9]

Gun control advocates note that only 2 burglars in 1,000 are driven off by armed homeowners. However, since a huge preponderance of burglaries take place when no one is home, the statistical citation is misleading. Several criminologists attribute the prevalence of daytime burglary to burglars' fear of confronting an armed occupant.[10] Indeed, a burglar's chance of being sent to jail is about the same as his chance of being shot by a victim if the burglar breaks into an occupied residence (1 to 2 percent in each case).[11]

Can Gun Laws Be Enforced?

As Stanford law professor John Kaplan has observed, "When guns are outlawed, all those who have guns will be outlaws."[12]Kaplan argued that when a law criminalizes behavior that its practitioners do not believe improper, the new outlaws lose respect for society and the law. Kaplan found the problem especially severe in situations where the numbers of outlaws are very high, as in the case of alcohol, marijuana, or gun prohibition.

Even simple registration laws meet with massive resistance. In Illinois, for example, a 1977 study showed that compliance with handgun registration was only about 25 percent. A 1979 survey of Illinois gun owners indicated that 73 percent would not comply with a gun prohibition.[14] It is evident that New York City's almost complete prohibition is not voluntarily obeyed; estimates of the number of illegal handguns in the city range from one million to two million.

With more widespread American gun control, the number of new outlaws would certainly be huge. Prohibition would label as criminal the millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens who believe they must possess the means to defend themselves, regardless of what legislation dictates.

In addition, strict enforcement of gun prohibition--like our current marijuana prohibition and our past alcohol prohibition--would divert enormous police and judicial resources to ferreting out and prosecuting the commission of private, consensual possessory offenses. The diversion of resources to the prosecution of such offenses would mean fewer resources available to fight other crime.

Assume half of all current handgun owners would disobey a prohibition and that 10 percent of them would be caught. Since the cost of arresting someone for a serious offense is well over $2,000, the total cost in arrests alone would amount to $5 billion a year. Assuming that the defendants plea-bargained at the normal rate (an unlikely assumption, since juries would be more sympathetic to such defendants than to most other criminals), the cost of prosecution and trial would be at least $4.5 billion a year. Putting each of the convicted defendants in jail for a three-day term would cost over $660 million in one-time prison construction costs, and over $200 million in annual maintenance, and would require a 10 percent increase in national prison capacity. Given that the entire American criminal justice system has a total annual budget of only $45 billion, it is clear that effective enforcement of a handgun prohibition would simply be impossible.

Do Gun Laws Disarm Criminals?

Although gun control advocates devote much attention to the alleged evils of guns and gun owners, they devote little attention to the particulars of devising a workable, enforceable law. Disarming criminals would be nearly impossible. There are between 100 and 140 million guns in the United States, a third of them handguns. The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400, that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600. Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminal supply would continue with barely an interruption. Even if 90 percent of American handguns disappeared, there would still be 40 left for every handgun criminal. In no state in the union can people with recent violent felony convictions purchase firearms. Yet the National Institute of Justice survey of prisoners, many of whom were repeat offenders, showed that 90 percent were able to obtain their last firearm within a few days. Most obtained it within a few hours. Three-quarters of the men agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble" obtaining a gun upon release, despite the legal barriers to such a purchase.

Even if the entire American gun stock magically vanished, resupply for criminals would be easy. If small handguns were imported in the same physical volume as marijuana, 20 million would enter the country annually. (Current legal demand for new handguns is about 2.5 million a year). Bootleg gun manufacture requires no more than the tools that most Americans have in their garages. A zip gun can be made from tubing, tape, a pin, a key, whittle wood, and rubber bands. In fact, using wood fires and tools inferior to those in the Sears & Roebuck catalogue, Pakistani and Afghan peasants have been making firearms capable of firing the Russian AK-47 cartridge.[20] Bootleg ammunition is no harder to make than bootleg liquor. Although modern smokeless gunpowder is too complex for backyard production, conventional black powder is simple to manufacture.[21]

Apparently, illegal gun production is already common. A 1986 federal government study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by the police in Washington, D.C., were homemade. Of course, homemade guns cannot win target-shooting contests, but they suffice for robbery purposes. Furthermore, the price of bootleg guns may even be lower than the price of the quality guns available now (just as, in prohibition days, bootleg gin often cost less than legal alcohol had).

Most police officers concur that gun control laws are ineffective. A 1986 questionnaire sent to every major police official in the country produced the following results: 97 percent believed that a firearms ownership ban would not reduce crime or keep criminals from using guns; 89 percent believed that gun control laws such as those in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City had no effect on criminals; and 90 percent believed that if firearms ownership was banned, ordinary citizens would be more likely to be targets of armed violence.

Guns and the Ordinary Citizen

Some advocates of gun prohibition concede that it will not disarm criminals, but nevertheless they favor it in the belief that disarming ordinary citizens would in itself be good. Their belief seems to rely heavily on newspaper accounts of suicidal or outlandishly careless gun owners shooting themselves or loved ones. Such advocates can reel off newspaper stories of children or adults killing themselves in foolish gun accidents (one headline: "2 Year-old Boy Shoots Friend, 5") or shooting each other in moments of temporary frenzy.

In using argument by anecdote, the advocates are aided by the media, which sensationalize violence. The sensationalism and selectivity of the press lead readers to false conclusions. One poll showed that people believe homicide takes more lives annually than diabetes, stomach cancer, or stroke; in fact, strokes alone take 10 times as many lives as homicides.]

Page 2 of 10

Even in the war of anecdotes, however, it is not at all clear that the gun control advocates have the advantage. Every month the National Rifle Association's magazines feature a section called "The Armed Citizen," which collects newspaper clippings of citizens successfully defending themselves against crime. For example, one story tells of a man in a wheelchair who had been beaten and robbed during five break-ins in two months; when the man heard someone prying at his window with a hatchet, he fired a shotgun, wounding the burglar and driving him away.[25]

Anecdotes rarely settle policy disputes, though. A coolheaded review of the facts debunks the scare tactics of the gun control advocates.

Some people with firsthand experience blame guns for domestic homicides. Said the chief of the homicide section of the Chicago Police Department, "There was a domestic fight. A gun was there. And then somebody was dead. If you have described one, you have described them all." Sociologist R. P. Narlock, though, believes that "the mere availability of weapons lethal enough to produce a human mortality bears no major relationship to the frequency with which this act is completed."

Guns do not turn ordinary citizens into murderers. Significantly, fewer than one gun owner in 3,000 commits homicide; and that one killer is far from a typical gun owner. Studies have found two-thirds to four-fifths of homicide offenders have prior arrest records, frequently for violent felonies.[28] A study by the pro-control Police Foundation of domestic homicides in Kansas City in 1977 revealed that in 85 percent of homicides among family members, the police had been called in before to break up violence. In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. Thus, the average person who kills a family member is not a non-violent solid citizen who reaches for a weapon in a moment of temporary insanity. Instead, he has a past record of illegal violence and trouble with the law. Such people on the fringes of society are unlikely to be affected by gun control laws. Indeed, since many killers already had felony convictions, it was already illegal for them to own a gun, but they found one anyway.

Of all gun homicide victims, 81 percent are relatives or acquaintances of the killer. As one might expect of the wives, companions, and business associates (e.g. drug dealers and loansharks) of violent felons, the victims are no paragons of society. In a study of the victims of near-fatal domestic shootings and stabbings, 78 percent of the victims volunteered a history of hard-drug use, and 16 percent admitted using heroin the day of the incident. Many of the handgun homicide victims might well have been handgun killers, had the conflict turned out a

little differently.

Finally, many of the domestic killings with guns involve self-defense. In Detroit, for example, 75 percent of wives who shot and killed their husbands were not prosecuted, because the wives were legally defending themselves or their children against murderous assault.[32] When a gun is fired (or brandished) for legal self-defense in a home, the criminal attacker is much more likely to be a relative or acquaintance committing aggravated assault, rather than a total stranger committing a burglary.

The "domestic homicide" prong of the gun control argument demands that we take guns away from law-abiding citizens to reduce the incidence of felons committing crimes against each other. Not only is such a policy impossible to implement, it is morally flawed. To protect a woman who chooses to share a bed and a rap sheet with a criminal, it is unfair to disarm law abiding women and men and make them easier targets for the criminal's rapes and robberies.

It is often alleged that guns cause huge numbers of fatal accidents, far outweighing the minimal gain from whatever anticrime effects they may have. For example, former U.S. Senate candidate Mark Green (D-N.Y.) warned that "people with guns in their homes for protection are six times more likely to die of gunfire due to accidental discharge than those without them." Of course, that makes sense; after all, people who own swimming pools are more likely to die in drowning accidents.

The actual number of people who die in home handgun accidents, though, is quite small. Despite press headlines such as "Pregnant Woman Killed by Own Gun While Making Bed," the actual death toll is somewhat lower than implied by the press. Each year roughly 7,000 people commit suicide with handguns and 300 or fewer people die in handgun accidents.] People who want to commit suicide can find many alternatives, and even pro-control experts agree that gun control has little impact on the suicide rate. Japan, for example, has strict gun control and a suicide rate twice the U.S. level. Americans have a high rate of suicide by shooting for the same reason that Norwegians have a high rate of suicide by drowning; guns are an important symbol in one culture, water in the other.

If a U.S. gun prohibition was actually effective, it could save the 300 or so handgun victims and 1,400 or so long-gun accident victims each year. Even one death is too many, but guns account for only 2 percent of accidental deaths annually.

Guns are dangerous, but hardly as dangerous as gun control advocates contend. Three times as many people are accidentally killed by fire as by firearms.[37] The number of people who die in gun accidents is about one-third the number who die by drowning.] Although newspapers leave a contrary impression, bicycle accidents kill many more children than do gun accidents. The average motor vehicle is 12 times more likely to cause a death than the average firearm.[39] Further, people involved in gun accidents are not typical gun owners but self-destructive individuals who are also "disproportionately involved in other accidents, violent crime and heavy drinking."

Moreover, there is little correlation between the number of guns and the accident rate. The per capita death rate from firearms accidents has declined by a third in the last two decades, while the firearms supply has risen over 300 percent. In part this is because handguns have replaced many long guns as home protection weapons, and handgun accidents are considerably less likely to cause death than long-gun accidents. Handguns are also more difficult for a toddler to accidentally discharge than are long guns.[42]

The risks, therefore, of gun ownership by ordinary citizens are quite low. Accidents can be avoided by buying a trigger lock and not cleaning a gun while it is loaded. Unless the gun owner is already a violent thug, he is very unlikely to kill a relative in a moment of passion. If someone in the house is intent on suicide, he will kill himself by whatever means are at hand.

Gun control advocates like to cite a recent article in the New Enqland Journal of Medicine that argues that for every intruder killed by a gun, 43 other people die as a result of gunshot wounds incurred in the home.[43] (Again, most of them are suicides; many of the rest are assaultive family members killed in legitimate self-defense.) However, counting the number of criminal deaths is a bizarre method of measuring anticrime utility; no one evaluates police efficacy by tallying the number of criminals killed. Defensive use of a gun is far more likely to involve scaring away an attacker by brandishing the gun, or by firing it without causing death. Even if the numbers of criminal deaths were the proper measure of anticrime efficacy, citizens acting with full legal justification kill at least 30 percent more criminals than do the police.[44]

Page 3 of 10

On the whole, citizens are more successful gun users than are the police. When police shoot, they are 5.5 times more likely to hit an innocent person than are civilian shooters.[45]Moreover, civilians use guns effectively against criminals. If a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robbery will succeed 88 percent of the time, and the victim will be injured 25 percent of the time. If the victim resists with a gun, the robbery "success" rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery--from using a knife, to shouting for help, to fleeing--produces such a low rate of victim injury and robbery success.[46] In short, virtually all Americans who use guns do so responsibly and effectively, notwithstanding the anxieties of gun control advocates.

Enforcing Gun Bans

Apart from the intrinsic merit (or demerit) of banning or restricting gun possession, the mechanics of enforcement must also be considered. Illegal gun ownership is by definition a possessory offense, like possession of marijuana or bootleg alcohol. The impossibility of effective enforcement, plus the civil liberties invasions that necessarily result, are powerful arguments against gun control.

Search and Seizure

No civil libertarian needs to be told how the criminalization of liquor and drugs has led the police into search-and-seizure violations. Consensual possessory offenses cannot be contained any other way. Search-and-seizure violations are the inevitable result of the criminalization of gun possession. As Judge David Shields of Chicago's special firearms court observed: "Constitutional search and seizure issues are probably more regularly argued in this court than anywhere in America."[47]

The problem has existed for a long time. In 1933, for example, long before the Warren Court expanded the rights of suspects, one quarter of all weapons arrests in Detroit were dismissed because of illegal searches.[48] According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the St. Louis police have conducted over 25,000 illegal searches under the theory that any black driving a late-model car must have a handgun.[49]

The frequency of illegal searches should not be surprising. The police are ordered to get handguns off the streets, and they attempt to do their job. It is not their fault that they are told to enforce a law whose enforcement is impossible within constitutional limits. Small wonder that the Chicago Police Department gives an officer a favorable notation in his record for confiscating a gun, even as the result of an illegal search.[50] One cannot comply with the Fourth Amendment--which requires that searches be based upon probable cause--and also effectively enforce a gun prohibition. Former D.C. Court of Appeals judge Malcolm Wilkey thus bemoaned the fact that the exclusionary rule, which bars courtroom use of illegally seized evidence, "has made unenforceable the gun control laws we now have and will make ineffective any stricter controls which may be devised."[51] Judge Abner Mikva, usually on the opposite side of the conservative Wilkey, joined him in identifying the abolition of the exclusionary rule as the only way to enforce gun control.[52]

Abolishing the exclusionary rule is not the only proposal designed to facilitate searches for illegal guns. Harvard professor James Q. Wilson, the Police Foundation, and other commentators propose widespread street use of hand-held magnetometers and walk-through metal detectors to find illegal guns.[53] The city attorney of Berkeley, California, has advocated setting up "weapons checkpoints" (similar to sobriety checkpoints), where the police would search for weapons all cars passing through dangerous neighborhoods.[54]School administrators in New Jersey have begun searching student lockers and purses for guns and drugs; Bridgeport, Connecticut, is considering a similar strategy. Detroit temporarily abandoned school searches after a female student who had passed through a metal detector was given a manual pat-down by a male security officer, but the city has resumed the program.[55] New York City is also implementing metal detectors.[56]

Searching a teenager's purse, or making her walk through a metal detector several times a day, is hardly likely to instill much faith in the importance of civil liberties. Indeed, students conditioned to searches without probable cause in high school are unlikely to resist such searches when they become adults. Additionally, it is unjust for the state to compel a student to attend school, fail to provide a safe environment at school or on the way to school, and then prohibit the student from protecting himself or herself.[57]

Perhaps the most harmful effect of the metal detectors is their debilitating message that a community must rely on paid security guards and their hardware in order to be secure. It does not take much imagination to figure out how to pass a weapon past a security guard, with trickery or bribery. Once past the guard, weapons could simply be stored at school. Instead of relying on technology at the door, the better solution would be to mobilize students inside the school. Volunteer student patrols would change the balance of power in the schoolyard, ending the reign of terror of outside intruders and gangs. Further, concerted student action teaches the best lessons of democracy and community action. The majority of people possessing illegal weapons during a gun prohibition would never carry them on the streets and would never be caught even by omnipresent metal detectors. Accordingly, a third of the people who favor a ban on private handguns want the ban enforced with house-to-house searches.[58] Eroding the Second Amendment guarantees erosion of the Fourth Amendment.

Those who propose abolishing the exclusionary rule and narrowing the Fourth Amendment apparently trust the street intuition of the police to sort out the true criminals so that ordinary citizens would not be subject to unjustified intrusions. However, one-fourth of the guns seized by the police are not associated with any criminal activity.[59] Our constitutional scheme explicitly rejects the notion that the police may be allowed to search at will.

Other Civil Liberties Problems

Although gun control advocates trust the police to know whom to arrest, the experience of gun control leads one to doubt police judgment. A Pennsylvania resident was visiting Brooklyn, New York, to help repair a local church when he spotted a man looting his truck. The Pennsylvania man fired a warning shot into the air with his legally registered Pennsylvania gun, scaring off the thief. The police arrived too late to catch the thief but arrested the Pennsylvania man for not acquiring a special permit to bring his gun into New York City.[60] In California a police chief went to a gun show and read to a machine gun dealer the revocation of his license; the dealer was immediately arrested for possessing unlicensed machine guns.[61]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been particularly outrageous in its prosecutions. Sometimes the BATF's zeal to inflate its seizure count turns its agents into Keystone Kops. One year in Iowa, for example, the BATF hauled away an unregistered cannon from a public war memorial; in California it pried inoperable machine guns out of a museum's display.

In the early 1970s changes in the price of sugar made moonshining unprofitable. To justify its budget, the BATF had to find a new set of defendants. Small-scale gun dealers and collectors served perfectly. Often the bureau's tactics against them are petty and mean. After a

Page 4 of 10

defendant's acquittal, for example, agents may refuse to return his seized gun collection, even under court order. Valuable museum-quality antique arms may be damaged when in BATF custody. Part of the explanation for the refusal to return weapons after an acquittal may lie in BATF field offices using gun seizures to build their own arsenals.[62]

The BATF's disregard for fair play harms more than just gun owners. BATF searches of gun dealers need not be based on probable cause, or any cause at all. The 1972 Supreme Court decision allowing these searches, United States v. Biswell, has since become a watershed in the weakening of the Constitution's probable cause requirement.[63]

Lack of criminal intent does not shield a citizen from the BATF. In United States v. Thomas, the defendant found a 16- inch-long gun while horseback riding. Taking it to be an antique pistol, he pawned it. But it turned out to be short-barreled rifle, which should have been registered before selling. Although the prosecutor conceded that Thomas lacked criminal intent, he was convicted of a felony anyway.[64] The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Freed declared that criminal intent was not necessary for a conviction of violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968.[65]

The strict liability principle has since spread to other areas and contributed to the erosion of the mens rea (guilty mind) requirement of criminal culpability.[66] U.S. law prohibits the possession of unregistered fully automatic weapons (one continuous trigger squeeze causes repeat fire). Semiautomatic weapons (which eject the spent shell and load the next cartridge, but require another trigger squeeze to fire) are legal. If the sear (the catch that holds the hammer at cock) on a semiautomatic rifle wears out, the rifle may malfunction and repeat fire. Accordingly, the BATF recently arrested and prosecuted a small-town Tennessee police chief for possession of an automatic weapon (actually a semiautomatic with a worn-out sear), even though the BATF conceded that the police chief had not deliberately altered the weapon. In March and April of 1988, BATF pressed similar charges for a worn-out sear against a Pennslyvania state police sergeant. After a 12-day trial, the federal district judge directed a verdict of not guilty and called the prosecution "a severe miscarriage of justice."[67]

The Police Foundation has proposed that law enforcement agencies use informers to ferret out illegal gun sales and model their tactics on methods of drug law enforcement.[68] Taking this advice to heart, the BATF relies heavily on paid informants and on entrapment--techniques originated during alcohol prohibition, developed in modern drug enforcement, and honed to a chilling perfection in gun control. So that BATF agents can fulfill their quotas, they concentrate on harassing collectors and their valuable rifle collections. Undercover agents may entice or pressure a private gun collector into making a few legal sales from his personal collection. Once he has made four sales, over a long period of time, he is arrested and charge