Jump to content

Overview of gun laws by nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.139.7.89 (talk) at 18:39, 12 September 2007 (king quote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gun politics is a set of legal issues surrounding the ownership, use, and control of firearms as well as perceived safety issues related to firearms both through their direct use and through criminal use. Answer to these issues hinge on the questions: What authority does a government have to impose regulations on guns? And to what extent should such regulation exist?[1] The answer to these questions and the nature of the politics varies and depends on the national and local political jurisdiction.

Domains

Main article: Domains of Gun Politics

Various domains of gun politics exist. These can be broken down to international, national, state, community, individual, and city group, religious and corporate domains.

International

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

National sovereignty

Main article: Sovereignty

Nations often hold their right to defend themselves from their neighbors, or to police within their own boundaries, as a fundamental right as a sovereign state. Unlike many other nations, the United States has enshrined in the Bill of Rights (i.e.,specifically in the Second Amendment) of the US Constitution, the individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the right to form militias. Every one of the Ten Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights refer to individual (not collective) rights and explicit limitations upon the power of the federal government.[2][3][4] Yet nations may lose their sovereignty by circumstances. Nations can be and have been forced to disarm by other nations, such as if they lose a war, or may have arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations which violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming they are acting within the scope of national sovereignty, might find themselves faced with a range of penalties or ramifications by neighboring states.

Security sector reform

Main article: Security sector reform

At times the security sector of a country can break down, or it might not have ever been well developed in the first place. Corruption and institutionalized repression, post-conflict insecurity or weak civil government structures can all lead to problems in a state's security sector. Security sector reform (SSR) can be imposed internally within a state, or it can be imposed by external states, such as in an intervention or occupation. SSR can include factors of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR), especially in post-conflict environments, but it is primarily directed towards state-based institutions, whereas DDR can more broadly apply to both state and non-state actors. SSR is also not solely focused on restrictions. SSR can also include provisions of broadening weapons programs, such as increased training, strengthening weapons stockpiles or upgrading equipment, or changing gun usage policies, in case a security sector is improperly positioned or currently inadequate to meet their present and projected security needs.

Enforcement

Interpol serves most often as the authorized law enforcement body having jurisdiction investigating allegations of international weapons smuggling.

National and regional police and security services also conduct their own arms control regimens. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) developed its own International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) Program "to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to further organized crime and narcotics-related activities. [5]

United States

The nature of gun politics varies widely between different jurisdictions. In the United States, where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a right to "keep and bear arms" for personal use and/or for the use in a militia. There is widespread feeling among some citizens that the government has no right to restrict the right to gun ownership.[6] Incidents of gun violence such as the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007, however, have reignited debate on the topic of gun politics in the United States.

Legislation

There are many areas of debate into what kinds of firearms should be allowed to be privately owned, if any, and how and where they may be used.

Some countries, such as Switzerland, practice universal conscription, which requires that all male citizens keep fully-automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 42 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.[7] During their national guard enrollment, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes, together with 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition, sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that each firearm is always combat-ready.[8] In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons. Ammunition (also MilSpec surplus) sold at rifle ranges is intended to be expended at the time of purchase, but target and sporting ammunition is widely available in gun and sporting goods stores.[9]

In the United States, a common area of dispute is whether any requirement that firearms be registered constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment by impairing the exercise of that explicitly protected right. There is the perception that firearms registration—by making it easier for government officers to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation—constitutes an easily exploited encroachment upon individual personal privacy and property rights.[10][11][12][13]

Fully-automatic firearms are legal in most states in the United States but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief and the payment of a $200 tax for initial registration and for each transfer.[14] The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all "nonsporting" firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. The act also prohibited further registry of most automatic firearms. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 imposed restrictions on some semiautomatic weapons and banned manufacture of machine guns in the United States (except for government purposes).[15]

Internationally, many countries have a ban on fully-automatic firearms, and some countries ban nearly all kinds of firearms.

In Japan, gun control laws are strict. Handgun ownership is strictly prohibited, while ownership of long-barreled firearms such as shotguns and hunting rifles are tightly regulated. All prospective gun owners must go through a lengthy background check to determine whether or not they have a criminal record or a record of mental illness.[16]

In late 2003 the CDC reported they found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence".[17]

Arguments

International data linking gun ownership and rates of suicide involving guns

File:GunOwnershipAndSuicide.JPG

Several studies have sought to examine the potential links between rates of gun ownership and rates of gun-related suicide within various jurisdictions around the world.[18][19] Although these studies do not offer a comprehensive account of all of the various causes of homicide and suicide (e.g. sources of depression and family conflict), they do provide relevant background data. For example, the chart at right presents an analysis by Martin Killias of the School of Forensic Sciences and Criminology, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, utilizing data from eighteen countries gathered between 1989 and 1992. Perhaps even more importantly, the same work reports a moderate correlation between overall rates of suicide and rates of gun ownership (Pearson's R = 0.476 with better than a 95% probability of being statistically significant) and shows that there is little evidence that rates of suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.[18] Although the study shows some degree of correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates, it does not imply causation between one and the other. The study suggests a number of alternative explanations for suicide rates, including climate, economic conditions, genetics, and culture.

Japan is often used as an argument for the obverse not being true, in that increased ownership of firearms does not necessarily lead to increased suicide rates among the population. Japan has maintained one of the highest suicide rates in the world[20] while private firearm ownership is almost non-existent. Japan was not included in the above study. For this and other omissions as well as a pro gun control bias in the public health literature, many voices have been critical in this area.[21]

Balance of power

Advocates for the right to bear arms often point to previous totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation. Totalitarian governments such as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during World War II, as well as some Communist states such as the People's Republic of China are examples of this[22] [23] [24]. Bolshevist Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the relatively liberal initial period from 1918 to 1929; the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime[25] There are several countries that have had gun control in place for many years—the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada for example—that are not totalitarian governments. Some make the argument that in order for a population to successfully fight a repressive government small arms would not suffice, but resistance would require heavy weaponry: tanks, airplanes and artillery. The rejoinder to this argument is that some guerrilla movements have had success using only small arms and improvised explosives.

While many social democracies in Western Europe have adopted gun control, totalitarian governments often try to disarm their populations and allow only supporters of these regimes to own and possess guns. There are free democratic countries that allow their citizens to own firearms such as the United States, New Zealand and Switzerland.[26] However, other democracies like Japan have very strict laws against citizens owning firearms and don't reveal totalitarian tendencies. The best known example of a country which was democratic prior to becoming totalitarian, the Weimar Republic, had restrictive gun laws, which the Nazis actually liberalized with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938, though they prohibited possession of weapons by Jews shortly thereafter. [27] The gun laws of the Weimar Republic were, however, very ineffective and the constant battles waged between heavily armed radical groups are often given as one factor contributing to the NSDAP's rise to power. [28]

Other countries that were briefly democratic before becoming totalitarian are: countries of the former USSR (e.g., Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc.) and many African countries (e.g.Zimbabwe, Angola). All have (and had) restrictive gun laws. In such countries as South Africa and Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia), the black majority was prevented from legally owning guns by the white minority, establishing white rule.

Firearms-rights advocates also point to the example of Japan. During the early Middle Ages, there was a high percentage of weapons ownership within the general populace, and this hindered the Japanese Imperial government in establishing totalitarian control within the country.[29] Numerous edicts were issued, stating directly that weapons should be confiscated because "possession of these elements [weapons] makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising".[30] The Japanese populace was eventually disarmed, and weapons ownership was strictly limited to the elite and their Samurai bodyguards.[31] Peasants, without any access to arms, were at the mercy of powerful warlords.

Registration of firearms in some countries has led to confiscations of formerly legal firearms and the outlawing of the ownership of firearms to various degrees[32], such as the confiscation of firearms in Australia[33], Great Britain[34], Canada, and California.[35][36]

Some oppose registration of guns or licensing of gun owners because if captured, the associated records would provide military invaders with the locations and identities of gun owners, simplifying elimination of law-abiding patriotic resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers; and was widely practiced by German and Soviet troops during World War II. Once the Nazis had taken and consolidated their power, they then proceeded to implement gun control laws to disarm the population and wipe out the opposition. Genocide of disarmed Jews, gypsies, and other undesirables followed.[37] [38] The Battles of Lexington and Concord, sometimes known as the Shot heard 'round the world, in the 1770s, were started in part because General Gage sought to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the populace[39].

Self-defense

Main article: Guns and crime

The economist and opinion editorialist John Lott claims to have identified a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals confront citizens— that is, an increases in the number or strictness of gun control laws is correlated with an increase in the number or severity of violent crimes. (Besides showing a drop in crime correlating with shall issue laws, Lott's results also show that increasing the unemployment rate is statistically associated with a drop in crime and that a small decrease in the population which is black, female, and between 40 and 49 would result in a big decrease in homicide.[citation needed]) 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. The possibility of getting shot by an armed victim is a substantial deterrent to crime and prevents not only petty crime but physical confrontation as well from criminals. Lott's data comes from the FBI's massive crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties.[40]

The criminologist Gary Kleck; while criticizing Lott's theories as (paradoxically) overemphasizing the threat to the average American from armed crime, and therefore the need for armed defense, Kleck's work speaks towards similar support for firearm rights by showing that the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime.[41][42] .

The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not,[43] University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues 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 (In his 2005 book, Freakonomics, Levitt argues that legalized abortion was the most important factor). 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 reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.

Thirty-nine 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, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia have explicit legislation restricting personal carry, although gun-control laws in the District of Columbia were ruled unconstitutional by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on March 9, 2007. Vermont and Alaska place no restrictions on lawful citizens carrying concealed weapons. Alaska retains a shall issue permit process for reciprocity where allowed.

Supporters of gun-rights 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 and to violate Constitutional guarantees. 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."[44][45][46]

Domestic violence

Gun control advocates argue 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.[47]

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.[48] [49][50][51] Kleck agrees only with Kellermann's finding that contrary to widespread perception, the overall frequency of homicide in the home by an invading stranger is much less than that of domestic violence. Kellerman's work has also being severely criticized because he ignores factors such as guns being used to protect property, save lives, and deter crime without killing the criminal—which, Kleck and others argue, accounts for the large majority of defensive gun uses.[52][53][54]

Armed forces' reserves and reservist training

In several countries, such as in Finland, the firearm politics and gun control is directly linked on the armed forces' reserves and reservist training. This is especially true in countries which base their armies on conscription; since every able-bodied male basically is a soldier, he is expected to be able to handle the gun reasonably and be able to practice for the time of need.

Switzerland is a noted example of a country in which, due to the country's conscription and militia traditions, firearm ownership is widespread. Owing to Switzerland's history, all able-bodied male Swiss citizens aged between 21 and 50 (55 for officers) are issued assault rifles and ammunition in order to perform their annual military obligations. Because of this, Switzerland is one of the few nations in the world with a higher rate of firearm ownership than the United States.[55] However, Switzerland also has strict control legislation on handguns, and has a relatively low rate of gun crime.[55] The comparatively low level of violent crime, despite the liberal gun laws, is demonstrated by the fact that Swiss politicians rarely have the same level of police protection as their counterparts in the United States and other countries, as was noted following the fatal shooting of several government officials in the Swiss canton of Zug in September 2001.[56] According to many historians, Switzerland's militia tradition of "every man a soldier" contributed to the preservation of its neutrality during the Second World War, when it was not invaded by Nazi Germany. Despite Switzerland being a thorn in Germany's back, it was not invaded because the military cost to the Nazis would have been too high.[57][58][59]

Likewise, it is very difficult to get a licence for a pistol or revolver in Finland, but relatively easy for a rifle or shotgun. The rationale is that long firearms are awkward to use in robberies and other felonies, but they are almost exclusively used in war; therefore practising or hunting with a long firearm is both relatively safe for the general populace and especially beneficial when the situation of crisis arises.

Civil rights

Gun rights and civil rights have long been entertwined. While president of the US, Ulysess S. Grant passed The Klan Act and Enforcement Act, responding the KKK's attempts to use force to intimidate blacks and prevent them from defending themselves. Grant later became the president of the NRA. During the 1950s and 1960s, the NRA helped black organizations secure rifles for self defense[60]. In response to the Black Panthers, Ronald Reagan of California signed the Mulford Act in 1967, which probihited the carrying of guns[61]. A favorite target of gun control is so-called "junk guns", which are generally cheaper and therefore more accessible to minorities. However, some civil rights organizations favor tigher 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."[62] Martin Luther King said, "By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim... we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes."Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). In 2002 in the U.S., 700 women were killed by intimates using guns compared to 175 men.[63]

In a similar fashion, many gun control advocates point to statistics in advertising campaigns purporting that "approximately 9 or so children are killed by people discharging firearms every day across the US,"[1] and argue that this statistic is seldom accompanied by a differentiation of those children killed by individuals from unintentional discharges and stray bullets, and of those "children," under the age of majority—which is 18 in the U.S.—who are killed while acting as aggressors in street gang related mutual combat or while committing crimes[2][3], many of which are seen as arising from the War on Drugs. There is further controversy regarding courts, trials, and the resulting sentences of these mostly "young men" as adults despite them not having reached the age of consent. A significant number of gun related deaths occur through suicide.

There has been widespread agreement on both sides that the use of trigger locks and the importance of gun safety education has a mitigating effect on the occurrence of accidental discharges involving children. There is somewhat less agreement about vicarious liability case law assigning strict liability to the gun owner for those firearms casualties occurring when a careless gun owner loses proper custody and control of her or his firearm.

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics:[64]

  • New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
  • In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
  • In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

In addition:

  • Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [4]
  • Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime. [citation needed]
  • Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. [65]
  • 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 case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.[citation needed]
  • UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population. [66] Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite a massive increase in the number of police personnel.[67] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air weapons, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including BB guns and soft air weapons).[68] Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005.
  • Australia forced the surrender of nearly 650,000 personal firearms in 1997.
    • A preliminary assesment of the impact of the legislation in 1999 [69] revealed that the national homicide rate has risen by 3.2% and the national assault rate by 8.6% but that firearms related deaths has decreased. However this study published in 1999 was based on data from 1993 to 1997 (and 1998 for some data), thus it is warned that these results are not necessarly conclusive.
    • A new study by the same author published in 2001 [70] shows a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths, but also reveals an overall rise in non-firearm related violent crime.
  • Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned. [71]

The FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report ranking of cities over 40,000 in population by violent crime rates (per 100,000 population) finds that the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates for 2003 include three cities in the very strict state of New Jersey, one in the fairly restrictive state of Massachusetts, whereas the rest have recently adopted laws that allow for the carrying of a handgun with a permit: [citation needed]

# City State
1 Saginaw MI
2 Irvington NJ
3 Camden NJ
4 Alexandria LA
5 Detroit MI
6 East Orange NJ
7 Atlanta GA
8 Springfield MA
9 Fort Myers FL
10 Miami FL

Of the ten states with the highest violent crime rates for 2003, seven have relatively permissive gun laws, and three are relatively strict, requiring legal affidavits stating special need before one can be issued a temporary license to carry a handgun: [citation needed]

# State
1 South Carolina
2 Florida
3 Maryland
4 Tennessee
5 New Mexico
6 Delaware
7 Louisiana
8 Nevada
9 Alaska
10 California

References

  1. ^ Spitzer, Donald J.,The Politics of Gun Control,Page 1. Chatham House Publishers, Inc., 1995.
  2. ^ Story,Joseph, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States(1986) Regnery Gateway, Chicago, Illinois, p.319-320, ISBN 0-89526-796-9
  3. ^ Hardy,David T. The origins and Development of the Second Amendment(1986), Blacksmith Corp., Chino Valley, Arizona, pp.64-93, ISBN 0-941540-13-8
  4. ^ Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man be Armed--The Evolution of a Constitutional Right(1987), The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp.55-87, ISBN 0-8263-0868-6
  5. ^ Tracing Illegal Small Arms: An ATF Program US State Department
  6. ^ Homegrown Gun Politics Plays Well With Voters, Washington Post, 17 May 2007
  7. ^ The Swiss Army at Europeforvisitors.com
  8. ^ Swiss Miss, John R. Lott writing for The National Review, October 2nd, 2003.
  9. ^ Switzerland at Guncite.com
  10. ^ Licensing and Registration Statutes, Hamline Law Review - Symposium on Firearms Legislation and Litigation, Vol. 6, No. 2. 1983
  11. ^ Story,Joseph, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States(1986) Regnery Gateway, Chicago, Illinois, p.319-320, ISBN 0-89526-796-9
  12. ^ Hardy,David T. The origins and Development of the Second Amendment(1986), Blacksmith Corp., Chino Valley, Arizona, pp.64-93, ISBN 0-941540-13-8
  13. ^ Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man be Armed--The Evolution of a Constitutional Right(1987), The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp.55-87, ISBN 0-8263-0868-6
  14. ^ The ATF National Firearms Act Handbook
  15. ^ The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618, with subsequent amendments including the Firearm Owners Protection Act
  16. ^ Japanese Gun Control, David B. Kopel, originally published in the Asia Pacific Law Review, 1993
  17. ^ First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws,Robert A. Hahn, Ph.D.; Oleg O. Bilukha, M.D., Ph.D.; Alex Crosby, M.D.; Mindy Thompson Fullilove, M.D.; Akiva Liberman, Ph.D.; Eve K. Moscicki, Sc.D.; Susan Snyder, Ph.D.; Farris Tuma, Sc.D.; Peter Briss, M.D.
  18. ^ a b Gun Ownership, Suicide and Homicide: An International Perspective, Martin Killias
  19. ^ Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle income countries, EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg, 1998
  20. ^ Suicide Rates (per 100,000), by country, year, and gender from the World Health Organization
  21. ^ Public Health and Gun Control: A Review. Part I: The Benefits of Firearms, Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., April 12, 2001
  22. ^ Rummel,RJ, Death by Government (1994) Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, ISBN 1-56000-145-3
  23. ^ Simkin, J, Zelman, and Rice, A, Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide-- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Inc.,1994, ISBN 0-9642304-0-2
  24. ^ Courtois,S, Werth, N, Panne, J-L, et al., The Black Book of Communism--Crimes, Terror, Repression(1999), Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, ISBN 0-674-07608-7
  25. ^ Rummel,RJ, Death by Government (1994) Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, pp.111-122, ISBN 1-56000-145-3
  26. ^ Kopel, David B. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy--Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992), Prometheus Books, New York, pp.233-442, ISBN 0-87975-756-6
  27. ^ Hitler and Gun Registration, Bernard E. Harcourt, April 5th, 2004
  28. ^ http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005465
  29. ^ Mason, R.H.P. and J.G. Caiger. A History of Japan. Boston, MA: Tuttle Publishing, 1997.
  30. ^ http://www.croftpress.com/david/quotes/
  31. ^ Mason, R.H.P. and J.G. Caiger. A History of Japan. Boston, MA: Tuttle Publishing, 1997.
  32. ^ National Gun Registration - Paving the Road to Tyranny, Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., Friday, Aug. 31, 2001, NewsMax.com
  33. ^ Australian Gun Ban Proved Disastrous, Dr. Miguel Faria, June 26, 2000, NewsMax.com]
  34. ^ A nation of thieves, Miguel A. Faria, Jr., October 17, 2003
  35. ^ Kopel, David B. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy--Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992), Prometheus Books, New York, pp.59-232, ISBN 0-87975-756-6
  36. ^ California: Another Lesson about Children and Guns, Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., March 12, 2001, NewsMax.com
  37. ^ Simkin, J, Zelman, and Rice, A, Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide-- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Inc.,1994, pp.149-186, ISBN 0-9642304-0-2
  38. ^ Rummel,RJ, Death by Government (1994) Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, pp.111-122, ISBN 1-56000-145-3
  39. ^ Kopel, David B. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy--Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992), Prometheus Books, New York, pp.313,351, ISBN 0-87975-756-6
  40. ^ Lott, John R.Jr., More Guns, Less Crime-- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws(1998), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Illinois, pp.50-122, ISBN 0-226-49363-6
  41. ^ 11. Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991). New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, pp.42-43 and 170-171
  42. ^ Lott, John R.Jr., More Guns, Less Crime-- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws(1998), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Illinois, pp.50-122, ISBN 0-226-49363-6
  43. ^ Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, Steven D. Levitt, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 18 No. 1, 2004]
  44. ^ Story,Joseph, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States(1986) Regnery Gateway, Chicago, Illinois, p.319-320, ISBN 0-89526-796-9
  45. ^ Hardy,David T. The origins and Development of the Second Amendment(1986), Blacksmith Corp., Chino Valley, Arizona, pp.1-78, ISBN 0-941540-13-8
  46. ^ Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man be Armed--The Evolution of a Constitutional Right(1987), The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp.1-88, ISBN 0-8263-0868-6
  47. ^ Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329(15):1084-1091.
  48. ^ Suter, Edgar A, Guns in the Medical Literature-- A Failure of Peer Review, Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia;83:133-152, March, 1994
  49. ^ Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Bad Medicine: Doctors and Guns in Guns -- Who Should Have Them? (Ed., Kopel DB), New York, NY, Prometheus Books, 1995, pp. 233-308.
  50. ^ Faria MA Jr. The perversion of science and medicine (Part III): Public Health and Gun Control Research and (Part IV): The Battle Continues. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(3):81-82 and 83-86.
  51. ^ Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Guns and public health: epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda? Tennessee Law Review 1995;62:513-596
  52. ^ Suter E, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. Violence in America-- effective solutions. J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84(6):253-264.
  53. ^ Lott, John JR. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998.
  54. ^ Kleck G. Targeting Guns-- Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, 1997.
  55. ^ a b "What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership.", American Rifleman, February 1990
  56. ^ 'Grudge' behind Swiss gun massacre, CNN, September 2001
  57. ^ Poe, Richard, The Seven Myths of Gun Control(2001), Prima Publishing, California, pp.75-83, ISBN 0-7615-2558-0
  58. ^ Kopel, David B., Guns-- Who Should Have Them? (Ed., Kopel DB), New York, NY, Prometheus Books, 1995, pp. 42-43.
  59. ^ Kopel,David B., The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy--Should America Adopt the Gun Control Laws of other Democracies? (1992) Prometheus Books, New York, pp.278-302, ISBN 0-87975-756-6
  60. ^ "Truth about Bowling for Columbine".
  61. ^ "FrontPage Magazine".
  62. ^ Editors (Sept/Oct 1999) "NAACP causes furor by suing gun manufacturers." New Crisis.
  63. ^ Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Intimate Homicide
  64. ^ "Myth No. 2: Gun Control Laws Reduce Crime", National Center for Policy Analysis, undated, accessed September 26, 2006
  65. ^ Lott, John JR. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998, pp.50-96,135-138.
  66. ^ http://www.firearmsafetyseminar.org.nz/_documents/Greenwood_Paper.pdf paragraph 58
  67. ^ Blair wants gun crime age reduced, BBC News, February 18, 2007
  68. ^ http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf
  69. ^ Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 116, Jenny Mouzos, May 1999
  70. ^ Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 269, Jenny Mouzos and Catherine Rushforth, November 2003
  71. ^ Kopel, David B. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy--Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992), Prometheus Books, New York, pp.257-277, ISBN 0-87975-756-6

See also

Gun political groups

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation&oldid=157433703"