Gun control

A tower of confiscated smuggled weapons about to be set ablaze in Nairobi, Kenya

Gun control is any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens.

Gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the world. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have very strict limits on gun possession while others, such as the United States, have relatively modest limits. In some countries, the topic remains a source of intense debate with proponents generally arguing the dangers of widespread gun ownership, and opponents generally arguing individual rights of self-protection as well as individual liberties in general.

Arguments

Impact on mortality

The first cross-national overall comparison of deaths caused by guns was published in 1998.

A number of analyses of factors associated with gun violence have been undertaken. In particular, the prevalence of gun ownership has been studied as a major factor in violent death and injury rates.

The results from various study evidence run the gamut from indicating positive, neutral, or a negative benefits associated with gun ownership.

A 2002 review of international gun control policies and gun ownership rates as these relate to crime rates by Don Kates and Gary Mauser, published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (a student run journal devoted to conservative and libertarian legal scholarship) argues that, "International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been [sic] afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative." Kates and Mauser point out in Europe, there is no correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rates and homicide rates (see table "European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates").

In contrast to the Kates and Mauser investigation, a 2004 review of the literature conducted by researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that, "a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries". The reviews by the HICRC also investigated variation in gun ownership and violence in the states of the United States and found that the same pattern held: states with higher gun ownership had higher rates of homicide, both gun-related and overall.

A number of studies have sought to examine the specific correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun-related, as well as overall, homicide and suicide rates within various jurisdictions around the world. Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. There was also a significant though lesser correlation between gun ownership and total homicide rates A later study published by Killias et al. in 2001, based on a larger sample of countries found, "very strong correlations between the presence of guns in the home and suicide committed with a gun, rates of gun-related homicide involving female victims, and gun-related assault." The authors suggest that the correlation between the presence of guns in the home and suicide and homicide of females is best explained as causal, i.e. the presence of guns is the cause of the mortality and not the reverse. The study found no correlation for similar crimes against men, total rates of assault or for robbery, however, the authors note that the relationship between availability of guns and male homicide is complex, and the data may be affected by wars, organized crime, street crime and crime rates among various countries. They also note that, "the absence of significant correlations between gun ownership and total homicide, assault, or suicide rates...[leaves] open the question of possible substitution effects." (In other words, other means could have been substituted for firearms used in the commission of homicide or suicide.)

Scholar Joyce Malcolm reviewed of the subject of crime rates and homicides in England and found that, "data on firearms ownership by constabulary area,” like data from the United States, show, “a negative correlation...[that is], where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."

A 1990 study by Rich et al. on suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and psychiatric patients from San Diego reached the conclusion that increased gun restrictions, while reducing suicide-by-gun, resulted in no net decline in suicides, because of substitution of another method—namely leaping. Killias argues against the theory of complete substitution, citing a number of studies that have demonstrated, in his view, "rather convincingly", that suicide candidates do not consistently turn to other means of suicide if their preferred means is not at hand. A more extensive study published in 1993, however, covering far more areas and controlling for the effects of many other gun laws, found that gun control laws generally have no detectable effect on total suicide rates.

Other researchers have argued strongly that, since suicide is largely impulsive, and guns are highly effective, completed suicide is the risk of gun ownership, for gun owners as well as spouses and children of gun owners.

In 2011, economists Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander investigated a variety of factors associated with firearm mortality among states.

They found no association with the proportion of mental illness or neurotic personalities, stress levels, illegal drug use, prevalence of unemployment or higher levels of economic inequality. They did find significant associations between gun deaths and poverty, economies dominated by working class jobs and the frequency of gun-carrying high school students. They further found a positive association between gun deaths and, states that voted Republican and a negative association in states that voted Democratic. Gun deaths were found to be less likely in states with a higher frequency of college graduates, more creative class jobs, higher levels of economic development, higher levels of happiness and well-being, and larger immigrant populations. The study also found that states that have banned assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage of firearms are all significantly lower in gun-related mortality.

Associations with authoritarianism

Opponents of gun control often state that past totalitarian regimes passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation, with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during World War II, as well as some communist states being cited as examples. They often cite the example of the Nazi regime, claiming that once the Nazis had taken and consolidated their power, they proceeded to implement gun control laws to disarm the population and wipe out the opposition, and the genocide of disarmed Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirables" followed. Historians have pointed out, however, that the preceding democratic Weimar Republic already had restrictive gun laws, which were actually liberalised by the Nazis when they came to power. According to the Weimar Republic 1928 Law on Firearms & Ammunition, firearms acquisition or carrying permits were “only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and—in the case of a firearms carry permit—only if a demonstration of need is set forth.” The Nazis replaced this law with the Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, which was very similar in structure and wording, but relaxed gun control requirements for the general population. This relaxation included the exemption from regulation of all weapons and ammunition except handguns, the extension of the range of persons exempt from the permit requirement, and the lowering of the age for acquisition of firearms from 20 to 18. It did, however, prohibit manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews. Shortly thereafter, in the additional Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all. Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929, and the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of Stalin's rule.

Kopel has claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, sometimes known as the Shot heard 'round the world, in 1775, were started in part because General Gage sought to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the populace. According to Harvey, this was not gun control but an act of war: the rebels had already formed a shadow government, were training militias, and tensions between them and the British colonial government were at the breaking point. In either case, Gage sent his troops to Concord to seize and destroy the rebel militia's military weapons depot, and to Lexington to capture two of the rebel leaders, Samuel Adams and John Hancock.

Self-defense

Main article: defensive gun use

Criminologist Gary Kleck claimed that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. He claimed that this was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults. Other research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons. A recent study from the University of Philadelphia suggests that victims in possession of firearms are 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those unarmed. As the University of Philadelphia study, by it's own admission, was conducted on a study population living within an urban area of Philadelphia with a mean number of 953 arrests for illicit drug trafficking per square mile, the studies relevance to the everyday populace of a given country or state is highly questionable; in addition, no delineation of legal or illegal gun possession was accounted for in the University of Philadelphia study outcomes.

Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway and other researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center (HICRC) have claimed that the frequency of use of guns for self-defense has been overestimated, and is, in fact, much lower than claimed by Kleck and others. Kleck claims, however, that these criticisms were based on purported flaws in surveys, addressing only minor sources of over-estimation while ignoring sources of underestimation. Two national random-digit-dial surveys directed by the HICRC report that most gun use claimed to be self-defensive, in fact, represents likely illegal use of guns in escalating arguments and that guns used in the home are mostly used to intimidate spouses or relatives rather than to respond to crime. Several further HICRC studies using data from surveys of detainees in prisons and interviews with prison physicians report that very few criminals are actually shot while committing crimes (confirming the findings of Kleck and Gertz 1995) and that those criminals who are shot are typically shot as victims of crime themselves (in incidents unrelated to the crimes that lead to their incarceration) and not by law abiding citizens.

The economist John Lott in his book More Guns, Less Crime claims that laws which make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a gun in public places, cause reductions in crime. Lott's results suggest that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. Lott's data came from the FBI's crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties. Following the Sandy Hook Newtown killing of 20 young children, Wayne LaPierre, vice-president of the National Rifle Association(NRA) argued at an NRA conference that the solution to such tragedies is more guns in schools and society in general: "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." That conference was disrupted twice by hecklers carrying banners that said "NRA: Killing Our Kids" and "NRA: Blood On Its Hands".

Kleck analysed the impact of 18 major types of gun control laws on every major type of violent crime or violence (including suicide), and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates. Studies by Arthur Kellermann and Matthew Miller found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide. Other studies, however, found no association between gun ownership and suicide.

In other countries, other methods of suicide may be used at even higher rates than the U.S., so gun availability may affect the method used but not overall suicide rates. However, the higher suicide rates in countries such as Japan may be explained by cultural factors irrelevant to the issue of the relationship between guns and suicide in the US. University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues in his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s. While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.

Forty-four U.S. states have passed "shall issue" concealed carry legislation of one form or another. In these states, law-abiding citizens (usually after giving evidence of completing a training course) may carry handguns on their person for self-protection. Other states and some cities such as New York may issue permits. Only Illinois, and the District of Columbia have explicit legislation forbidding personal carry. Wyoming,Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska do not require permits to carry concealed weapons, although Alaska retains a shall-issue permit process for reciprocity purposes with other states. Similarly, Arizona retains a shall-issue permit process, both for reciprocity purposes and because permit holders are allowed to carry concealed handguns in certain places (such as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol) that non-permit holders are not.

Many opponents of gun control consider self-defense to be a fundamental and inalienable human right and believe that firearms are an important tool in the exercise of this right. They consider the prohibition of an effective means of self-defense to be unethical. For instance, in Thomas Jefferson’s "Commonplace Book," a quote from Cesare Beccaria reads,

"laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Domestic violence

Gun control advocates claim that the strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence, most often referring to the series of studies by Arthur Kellermann. In response to public suggestions by some advocates of firearms for home defense, that homeowners were at high risk of injury from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann investigated the circumstances surrounding all in-home homicides in three cities of about half a million population each over five years, and found that the risk of a homicide was in fact slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. From the details of the homicides he concluded that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in a fatal injury was much higher when a gun was readily available (essentially all the increased risk being in homes where a handgun was kept loaded and unlocked), compared to a lower rate of fatality in domestic violence not involving a firearm.

This increase in mortality, he postulated, was large enough to overwhelm any protective effect the presence of a gun might have by deterring or defending against burglaries or home invasions, which occurred much less frequently. The increased risk averaged over all homes containing guns was similar in size to that correlated with an individual with a criminal record living in the home, but substantially less than that associated with demographic factors known to be risks for violence, such as renting a home versus ownership, or living alone versus with others.

Other scholars, however, believe that Kellermann misinterpreted his findings. Kleck showed that no more than a handful of the homicides that Kellermann studied were committed with guns belonging to the victim or members of his or her household, and thus it was implausible that victim household gun ownership contributed to their homicide. Instead, the association that Kellermann found between gun ownership and victimization merely reflected the widely accepted notion that people who live in more dangerous circumstances are more likely to be murdered, but also were more likely to have acquired guns for self-protection prior to their death.

Other critics of Kellermann's work and its use by advocates of gun control point out that since it deliberately ignores crimes of violence occurring outside the home (Kellermann states at the outset that the characteristics of such homicides are much more complex and ambiguous, and would be virtually impossible to classify rigorously enough), it is more directly a study of domestic violence than of gun ownership. Kellermann does in fact include in the conclusion of his 1993 paper several paragraphs referring to the need for further study of domestic violence and its causes and prevention. Researchers John Lott, Gary Kleck and many others dispute Kellermann's work.

Kleck found that the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve the defender killing or even nonfatally wounding the offender.

Armed forces' reserves and reservist training

In several countries, such as Switzerland, firearm politics and gun control are partially linked with armed forces' reserves and reservist training. Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation. During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes. They are not allowed to keep ammunition for these firearms in their homes, however; ammunition is stored at government arsenals. Up until September 2007, soldiers received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home. Swiss gun laws are considered to be restrictive. Owners are legally responsible for third party access and usage of their weapons. Licensure is similar to other Germanic countries. In a referendum in February 2011 voters rejected a citizens' initiative which would have obliged armed services members' to store their rifles and pistols on military compounds, rather than keep them at home.

Civil rights

Some see gun ownership as a civil right. This view is common in the United States where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment protects gun owners when it states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Jeff Snyder is a spokesman for the view that gun possession is a civil right, and that therefore arguments about whether gun restrictions reduce or increase violent crime are beside the point: "I am not here engaged in...recommending...policy prescriptions on the basis of the promised or probable results [on crime]...Thus these essays are not fundamentally about guns at all. They are, foremost, about...the kind of people we intend to be...and the ethical and political consequences of decisions [to control firearms]." He terms the main principle behind gun control "the instrumental theory of salvation:" that, lacking the ability to change the violent intent in criminals, we often shift focus to the instrument in an attempt to "limit our ability to hurt ourselves, and one another." His work discusses the consequences that flow from conditioning the liberties of all citizens upon the behavior of criminals.

Some of the earliest gun-control legislation at the state level were the "black codes" that replaced the "slave codes" after the Civil War, attempting to prevent blacks' having access to the full rights of citizens, including the right to keep and bear arms. Laws of this type later used racially neutral language to survive legal challenge, but were expected to be enforced against blacks rather than whites.

A favorite target of gun control is so-called "junk guns," which are generally cheaper and therefore more accessible to the poor. However, some civil rights organizations favor tighter gun regulations. In 2003, the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun manufacturers for creating what it called a "public nuisance" through the "negligent marketing" of handguns, which included models commonly described as Saturday night specials. The suit alleged that handgun manufacturers and distributors were guilty of marketing guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. "The gun industry has refused to take even basic measures to keep criminals and prohibited persons from obtaining firearms," NAACP President/CEO Kweisi Mfume said. "The industry must be as responsible as any other and it must stop dumping firearms in over-saturated markets. The obvious result of dumping guns is that they will increasingly find their way into the hands of criminals."

The NAACP lawsuit was dismissed in 2003. It, and several similar suits—some brought by municipalities seeking re-imbursement for medical costs associated with criminal shootings—were portrayed by gun-rights groups as "nuisance suits," aimed at driving gun manufacturers (especially smaller firms) out of business through court costs alone, as damage awards were not expected. These suits prompted the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in October 2005.

Civic duty

Some proponents of private gun ownership argue that an armed citizens' militia can help deter crime and tyranny, as police are primarily a reactive force whose main loyalty is to the government which pays their wages. The Militia Information Service (MIS) contends that gun ownership is a civic duty in the context of membership in the militia, much like voting, neither of which they believe should be restricted to government officials in a true democracy. MIS also states that the people need to maintain the power of the sword so they can fulfil their duty, implicit in the social contract, to protect the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, much as individual citizens have a legal and ethical duty to protect dependents under their care, such as a child, elderly parent, or disabled spouse.

Statistics

Private ownership

As of 2011, approximately 47% of American households have a gun in them.

Gun safety and gun laws

Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no change in violent crime. It has subsequently ended its ban as a result of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case, upon a federal lawsuit by the National Rifle Association being filed the day after Heller was entered. Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.—and each has or, in the cases of Detroit (until 2001) and D.C. (2008) had, a requirement for a license on private handguns or an effective outright ban (in the case of Chicago).

In Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), the private ownership of most handguns was banned in 1997 following a gun massacre at a school in Dunblane and a 1987 gun massacre in Hungerford in which the combined deaths was 35 and injured 30. Gun ownership and gun crime was already at a low level, which made these slaughters particularly concerning. Only an estimated 57,000 people —0.1% of the population owned such weapons prior to the ban. In the UK, only 8 percent of all criminal homicides are committed with a firearm of any kind. In 2005/6 the number of such deaths in England and Wales (population 53.3 million) was just 50, a reduction of 36 per cent on the year before and lower than at any time since 1998/9. In 2007, the number of deaths in Britain (population 60.7 million) from firearms was 51. In 2007 in the U.S. 12,632 murders were committed using firearms, 613 persons were killed unintentionally, and 17,352 committed suicide by firearms. In 2008 the number of deaths from firearms in Britain was 42, a 20-year low, with vast parts of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were heavily restricted and a special Gun Court established. However a high proportion of the illegal guns in Jamaica can be attributed to guns smuggled in from the United States, where they are more freely available.

History

Gun control in the United States

Main article: Gun politics in the United States

Before the American Civil War ended, state slave codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After slavery in the U.S. was abolished, states persisted in prohibiting Black people from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, most states turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns in order to price destitute individuals out of the gun market.

Gun control in Australia

Main article: Gun politics in Australia

In response to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence were adopted under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws.

The National Firearms Agreement banned all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and created a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls. Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the Federal Government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 that provided the revenue for the National Firearms Program through a one-off 0.2% increase in the Medicare levy. Known as the gun buy-back scheme, it started across the country on the 1 October 1996 and concluded on the 30 September 1997 to purchase and destroy all semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. The buyback was predicted to cost A$500 million and had wide community support.

In 2002, the Monash University shooting led the federal government to urge state governments to again review handgun laws, and, as a result, amended legislation was adopted in all states and territories. Changes included a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.65 mm), a barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers, and even stricter probation and attendance requirements for sporting target shooters. In the state of Victoria A$21 million compensation was paid for confiscating 18,124 target pistols, and 15,184 replacement pistols were imported.

One government policy was to compensate shooters for giving up the sport. Approximately 25% of pistol shooters took this offer, and relinquished their licences and their right to own pistols for sport for five years.

There is contention over the effects of the gun control laws in Australia, with some researchers reporting significant drops in gun-related crime, and others reporting no significant effect in gun related or overall crime rates. The primary source of the controversy is that, while the incidence of firearm deaths has decreased considerably since the 1996 restrictions went into effect, the rates had already been falling for the past two decades prior to the new gun laws. An article by David Hemenway argues that these studies were designed to find nothing. Hemenway writes that the authors of these studies carefully chose the period of study to reflect their desired negative results without giving rationale for the time period they choose to show a supposed decline in australian gun violence. In Australia, the rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States. The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States.

See also

• Brady Campaign
• Mayors Against Illegal Guns
• Arms control
• Concealed carry
• Constitutional carry (in USA)
• District of Columbia v. Heller
• Gun politics
• Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)
• McDonald v. Chicago
• National Rifle Association (NRA)
• Second Amendment Sisters
• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

External links

• Coalition for Gun Control-Canada
• Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
• Gun Control Australia - Supporting Gun Control in Australia
• STOP GUN CARAVAN - Japan
• Gun Free South Africa
• GunPolicy.org and Gun Policy News
• A Human Right
• Gun Owners of America
• Gun Ownership in India
• GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues
• Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
• Keep and Bear Arms
• National Rifle Association of America
• Pink Pistols
• Second Amendment Foundation
• Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah