Home * Political Links * News * Soap Box * Cartridge Box
Jury Box * Humor * Boycott * Biography * Contact Liz
Liz Michael for United States Senate

Nine Myths of Gun Control

* 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 lifeI." 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 antiselfdefense 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.

Home * Political Links * News * Soap Box * Cartridge Box
Jury Box * Humor * Boycott * Biography * Contact Liz
Liz Michael for United States Senate

[1] Leape LL. "Error in Medicine." JAMA. 1994; 272(23): 1851-57.

[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. [3] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

[4] Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. "Violence in America -
Effective  Solutions." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia.
Spring 1995,  forthcoming.

[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.

[6] Hammett M, Powell KE, O¼Carroll PW, Clanton ST. "Homicide Surveillance
-  United States, 1987 through 1989." MMWR. 41/SS-3. May 29,1992.

[7] FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1991.
Washington  DC: US Government Printing Office. 1992

[8] National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National
Safety  Council. 1993.

[9] Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G. "Reducing Firearm
Injuries." Issues in Science and Technology. Spring 1991: 73-9.

[10] Christoffel KK. "Towards Reducing Pediatric Injuries From Firearms:
Charting a Legislative and Regulatory Course." Pediatrics. 1992;
88:294-300.

[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.

[12] Dawson JB aand Langan 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.

[13] US Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties,
1988." Washington DC: US Department of Justice. 1993.

[14] Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA:
California  Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4.

[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.

[16] Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and
Public  Places: A Prevention and Management Guide.¾ Ventura CA:
Pathfinder. 1993.

[17] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of
Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home.¾ N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.

[18] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a
risk  factor for homicide in the home.¾ N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15):
1084-91.

[19] Japenga A. "Gun Crazy.¾ San Francisco Examiner. This World
supplement.  April 3, 1994. p. 7-13 at 11.

[20] Max W and Rice DP. "Shooting in the Dark: Estimating the Cost of
Firearm Injuries.¾ Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85.

[21] Nieto M, Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. "Firearm-Related Violence in
California: Incidence and Economic Costs.¾ Sacramento CA: California
Research Bureau, California State Library. October 1994.

[22] McGonigal MD, Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood
PB.  "Urban Firearms Deaths: A Five-Year Perspective.¾ J Trauma. 1993;
35(4):  532-36.

[23] Hutson HR, Anglin D, and Pratss MJ. "Adolescents and Children
Injured  or Killed in Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles.¾ N Engl J Med.
1994; 330:  324-27.

[24] Zedlewski EW. Making Confinement Decisions - Research in Brief.
Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
July 1987.

[25] United Press. "China seizes 120,000 guns.¾ October 21, 1994.

[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.

[27] Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall Issue¾: The New Wave of Concealed
Handgun  Permit Laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper.
October 17,  1994.

[28] Aborn R, President of Handgun Control Inc. Letter to the Editor.
Washington Post. September 30, 1994.

[29] Thomson Charles, Associate Director for Law Enforcement, Bureau of
alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of teh Treasury. Statement
before  the Subcommitttee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee of the
Judiciary,  US House of Representatives. September 20, 1994.

[30] Halbrook SP. "Another Look at the Brady Law.¾ Washington Post.
October  8, 1994. p A-18.

[31] Howlett D. "Jury Still Out on Success of the Bardy Law.¾ USA Today.
December 28, 1994. p A-2.

[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.

[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.

[34] Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of
Felons and Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986.

[35] Suter EA, Morgan RE, Cottrol RJ, et al. "The Right to Keep and Bear
Arms - A Primer for Physicians.¾ Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Spring 1995, forthcoming.

[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.

[37] Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Yale Law
Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.;

[38] Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection.
Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.

[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
åTheir 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.

[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.