Gun Information Archive #2 Contents: Want Gun Control? Enforce the 2nd Amendment!, by Robe
Gun Information Archive #2
--------------------------
Contents:
Want Gun Control? Enforce the 2nd Amendment!, by Robert J. Cottrol
Data on civilian armed resistance to crime
Specific examples of people defending themselves with guns
A good example of why I own guns (my defense), by Kevin Langston
Judge orders gun ban in housing projects
The aim of gun control is annihilation, by Russ Meek
Refutation of "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide" study
Statistics on accidental firearm deaths
The Second Amendment, by those who design, constructed, and erected it
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
Want Gun Control?
Enforce the Second Amendment!
by Robert J. Cottrol
At the end of last month's ABC news Town Meeting on "Guns," anchorman
Peter Jennings summed up the sentiments of most Americans on the subject.
He said, "I'm confused."
Overwhelmingly, the American people support the right of law-abiding
citizens to own firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes. Roughly
one-half the homes in the country have at least one gun in them. By an
equally large majority, the American people also support measures that
would help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally
unbalanced.
Why then have we been unable to develop a sensible national policy
that both protects the rights of legitimate gun owners while keeping
guns out of dangerous hands? The answer in part lies in our failure to
enforce the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to keep and bear
arms."
One motivation for vigorous opposition to such measures as waiting
periods for background checks on the part of the NRA and others is the
fear, buttressed by frank admissions on the part of many gun control
advocates, that such steps are simply a back door towards prohibition.
That fear is further fed by those, including many in the federal judiciary,
who urge the Second Amendment provides no protection against firearms
prohibition.
Imagine how different the political debate on gun control might be if
we simply treated the Second Amendment the way we do other provisions of
the Bill of Rights. There is no viable political movement lobbying against
requirements for parade permits. Why? Because the courts have made it
clear that First Amendment guarantees regarding free speech and freedom
of assembly will be enforced. Another strong signal of the courts'
intentions to enforce the guarantees of the Second Amendment could go a
long way towards furthering the cause of reasonable regulation of firearms
ownership.
One reason the courts have failed to enforce the Second Amendment is
revealed in an article recently published in the Yale Law Journal. The
author, neither an NRA supporter nor a gun enthusiast, points out that
our society's elites regard the Second Amendment as an embarrassment to
be ignored or dismissed. This cultural prejudice has distorted discussion
on important constitutional issues concerning gun control.
Opponents of the view that the Second Amendment is a bar to firearms
prohibition seize on the Amendment's militia clause as evidence that the
provision was designed to confer a corporate right on the states, not
an individual right. In doing so, these opponents ignore historical
evidence which indicates that when the framers of the Second Amendment
used the term "militia," they were referring not only to the organized
militia, but the armed citizenry as a whole.
By the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment, the militia was
an old idea in Anglo-American law. The militia was composed of free men
of the community, armed with their individually owned weapons. The
principle was recognized in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Both the
individual's right to be armed and the concept of a militia composed of
all free men were ratified by 18th century English legal commentator
William Blackstone and later by 19th century U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Joseph Story. The armed citizenry was cited by the Second Amendment framer
James Madison as one of the chief differences between the free American
Republic and the despotic monarchies of Europe. These points have been
explored at great length in legal and historical journals. They need to
become part of the public debate on the Constitution and gun control.
There is also a need for more honest reporting of Supreme Court
decisions regarding the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates frequently
misstate the holding in the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller, the only case
where the Supreme Court has squarely addressed the question of the Second
Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the Court supported the view that
the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear
arms. The opinion distinguished between ordinary military small arms
which were part of the right secured to citizens by the Second Amendment
and arms which were not military-type arms (Miller had been charged with
possession of an unlawful sawed-off shotgun).
Finally, those who argue against the individual rights view often make
the dangerous assumption that the current state of judicial interpretation
must be accepted without examination and criticism. They note correctly
that since Miller, lower federal courts have either tended to apply the
militia theory or used other devices to avoid the individual rights
implication of the Second Amendment. Judicial hostility toward a
constitutional right should not cause us to ignore the existence of that
right.
In the early 20th century, federal courts, including the Supreme Court,
ignored flagrant violations of the equal protection provision of the
Fourteenth Amendment and the color-blind voting provision of the Fifteenth.
The courts allowed states to perpetuate both legal jim crow and the
disenfranchisement of blacks. This judicial acquiescence did not invalidate
the egalitarian principles of the Reconstruction Amendments. Such past
experience with our judicial system should serve as a potent reminder
of the dangers of judicial absolutism.
We have a serious crime problem in this country. Sensible gun control
measures can help make a small dent in that problem. These measures
cannot be achieved by ignoring the Constitution or the rights of the
very population--gun owners--whose compliance is indispensable if gun laws
are to work. Indeed, we may find that enforcing the Second Amendment's
guarantees may be the first step towards solving a complex problem.
-----
About the Author
Robert J. Cottrol is an associate professor at Boston College Law
School. He specializes in constitutional law and legal history
and writes and speaks on gun control issues for the Pacific Research
Institute for Public Policy.
The preceding article originally appeared in the March 1990 issue of the
American Rifleman, an NRA publication.
**********************************************************************
Subject: Data on resistance to assault
This is in response to the discussion about whether or not it is
useful to resist to an assault. I have cross posted this to soc.women
solely because of the data on the Orlando rape experience, and
followups are pointed back to misc.headlines.
Some data re: civilian armed resistance to crime.
Primary Source: G. Kleck. Crime Control Through the Private use of
Armed Force. Social Prob. 35:1-25,1988.
Because national data is not collected regarding the private use of
arms in self protection, most national estimates are based on
projections from local data. Using a number of such sources for
1980, Kleck estimates that between 1527-2819 felons were killed by
civilians in what were later adjudicated to be self-defense killings,
8700-16600 felons were wounded, and there were approximately 1
million cases where a gun was fired as a warning but no one was hit,
or was waved, pointed, or referred to without being fired as acts of
self defense.
Effectiveness:
Kleck examined data for robberies and assault for the years
1979-1985. He looked at attack, crime completion, and injury rates
correlated with the means of self-defense.
He found:
Self Defense Robbery Assault
Method Injuries Injuries
Gun 17.4% 12.1%
Knife 40.3 29.5
Other weapon 22.0 25.1
Physical force 50.8 52.1
Tried to get help
or frighten attacker 48.9 40.1
Threaten or reason
with attacker 30.7 24.7
Nonviolent resistance
and evasion 34.9 25.5
Other measures 26.5 20.7
No resistance 24.7 27.3
Thus, gun resistance was the most effective means for avoiding injury.
Some writers have argued that resistance, in and of itself, is a
cause of injury -- that the robber or assaulter would not cause
injury if the victim had not resisted. The sequence of events --
whether the resistance preceded or followed the attack is not
normally part of the data collected by the NCS (National Crime Survey
public use data tapes), this question *was* asked as a special Victim
Risk Questionnaire in 1984. The response to this questionnaire showed
that for assault involving non-violent resistance, the resistance
occured before the attack only 5.7% of the time. For cases of robbery
and assault, forceful resistance never preceded the attack. In
general, the data does not support the contention that the victim's
defensive actions provoked the attack.
Types of crimes in which civilian guns are used in self defense:
Again, no national data is collected. Two local data sets are
referred to by Kleck. The first as a California poll taken in 1976,
and the second was medical examiner data from Dade County Florida
from 1980 (compiled in 1984):
Crime % CA Crime % Dade Co.
Assault or rape
at home 41% Assault 64%
Assault elsewhere 21 Rape 1%
Theft at home 20 Burglary 8
Theft elsewhere 11 Robbery 26
Other 7
Total 100 100
Deterrence effects:
The question of whether or not gun ownership deters potential felons
from attacking is hotly debated. Surveys of criminals almost
uniformly suggest that this is a serious consideration, though folk
who disagree with the conclusions thus offered criticize the results
either because of population selection (captured criminals) in the
respondent pool, or because of the behavioral considerations (the
criminals are lying -- they really aren't afraid of guns, they just
say they are).
There are, however, some quasi-experimental data involving sharp
changes in perceived gun ownership.
The first involved Orlando, FL. From October 1966 to March 1967, the
Orlando Police Department responded to citizen outcry over an
increasing incidence of rape by training 2500 women to use guns in a
highly publicized effort. As a result, the incidence of rape
*decreased* by 88%, though it remained constant in Florida as a whole
and in the US. Burglary was the only other crime to show a
significant decrease. Thus, the targeted crime, rape, decreased by
increased public awareness of private gun ownership by women, and the
offense most likely to occur where victims have access to to guns,
burglary, also decreased.
A smaller similar program was also instituted in Kansas City, MO in
1967, only targeted towards store owners in response to robbery. The
incidence of robbery in the US increased by 30% in 1967, 20% in the
West North Central region of the US, and by 35% in the rest of
Missouri. However, the incidence of robbery did not increase in
Kansas City and decreased in the surrounding suburbs. As in Orlando,
burglary was the only crime to also significantly differ from the
surrounding area statistics and trends during that year.
Similar results of publicised gun-training and ownership programs
have occurred elsewhere, such as Detroit in 1968. After the Goetz
incident, subway robberies in New York city decreased by 43% the next
week, and 19% in the following two months, though the increase in
transit police manpower during the same time confounds the true
influence of the Goetz publicity alone.
To protest the Morton Grove decision to ban handguns, Kennesaw,
Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta, passed an ordinance requiring heads of
households to keep at least one firearm in their home. In the seven
months following the passage of that ordinance, there were only 5
reported burglaries, compared with 45 in the same period for the
previous year, an 89% decrease. This can be compared to a 10%
decrease in Georgia as a whole, 6.8% decrease in the South Atlantic
States, 9.6% decrease in the US, and 7.1% decrease for cities of
similar size.
The fear of encountering armed citizens has been a recurrent theme in
responses by burglars when asked why they prefer to burgle unoccupied
homes. In a 1986 survey, 73% of felons convicted of burglary or
violent crime agreed that fear of being shot was one reason burglars
avoid houses where people are at home. Results of victimization
surveys from three countries support this idea. In Great Britain, 59%
of attempted burglaries occured when someone was at home, in a study
in 1987.. In the Netherlands, 48% of burglaries occured when someone
was at home in 1977. A 1978 study showed that 44 percent of
burglaries in Toronto occurred when someone was home. The incidence
of burglary in the US to occupied homes runs less than 10%.
Thus, evidence for a deterrent effect exists.
Bill Oliver
**********************************************************************
From: gdelong@cvman.prime.com (Gary Delong)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.guns
Subject: The Armed Citizen
Message-ID: <173@cvman.prime.com>
Date: 12 Sep 89 19:48:06 GMT
(From: _The News_, Detroit, Mich. 5/15/89)
A youth who had done odd jobs for 71-year-old Bennie Mae Peoples
showed up at her Detroit, Mich., home and asked to use the bathroom.
Once inside, however, the youth went berserk and beat Peoples with a
vacuum cleaner. Her 91-year-old sister tried to halt the attack, but
the assailant hit her with a vase and left her for dead. Peoples
managed to reach her late husband's revolver just as the youth
returned armed with a knife. She fired, killing him.
-------------------
(From: _The Journal_, Albuquerque, N.Mex. 5/31/89)
Lisa Ways pulled into an Albuquerque, N.Mex., grocery store when an
armed couple stuck a gun in her face and attempted to abduct her. The
University of New Mexico student handed over her wallet, then forced
her way out of the van and struggled with the man. She then drew her
handgun from a daypack and shot and wounded him. The couple fled in
Way's van but was latter arrested. "It was confirmation to me that
I've made the right decision about firearms for my own personal use,"
the student said.
-------------------
(From: _Newsday_, Long Island, N.Y. 3/18/89)
Emile Schrumph was sitting in his Woodbury, N.J., home when he heard
a load noise coming from his basement. Armed with his licensed
handgun, the 65-year-old homeowner went to investigate and confronted
two men who had broken in. He fired on them, hitting one, and both
men fled. A wounded suspect was arrested by police when he sought
medical treatment.
-------------------
[..obvious typos are probably mine..]
The right to keep and bear arms is as much a civil right as the right
of free speech.
--
_____
/ \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com
| \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong
\____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261
**********************************************************************
From: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.activism
Subject: Re: A good example of why I own guns (my defense)
Summary: Take a look around, don't be afraid of what you see.
In article <236.26333fc7@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu> Peter D. Wilson writes:
> I am here debating with others on whether it
> is too much of an infringement to require gun owners to register their
> guns and to take a safety course and you interpret that as being a
> "Holier than thou" attitude?
You say "too much of an infringement" but the 2nd says "shall not be
infringed"... The only degree of infringement specified is at the
absolute level, zero, zilch. I would be willing to take a gun safety
and handling course if it guaranteed me the capability of unlimited
concealed or unconcealed carry, if it also covered the legal aspects
of using a defensive weapon. But that course cannot be required to
own, purchase or use a gun, at least if we continue to follow the
constitution. If you continue to harp on the "degree of infringement"
which is "acceptable" then you are showing a "holier-than-thou"
attitude, since you think you know better than the people who wrote
the constitution and can ignore the past two hundred years of history!
A lot of people will get miffed when you claim to know more about what
is acceptable than they do, when you have no real experience in the
matter.
So tell us Peter, do you own a gun? Have you ever fired a gun?
Or do you think of gun-owners as beer-drinking, bambi-killing,
rednecks who drive around in their pick-up trucks shooting up
street signs?
> However, I
> hold my opinions on the basis that I think they can make the world a
> better place. If I didn't believe this, I wouldn't hold the opinions.
If you really believe this, then you owe it to yourself to check out
the reality of your theories. If the overwhelming data leads to a way
which is contrary to what you theorize, then you should re-examine
and maybe modify your opinions. Fair enough? Then maybe you can
make more informed suggestions.
> I also support laws that prevent people from having guns if they are
> shown to be incompetent in the handling of firearms or have violent
> tendencies that pose a risk to the rest of society.
So why the waiting period? The standard claim is that it would allow
a "thorough" search of the applicant's background, yet the FBI or
DoJ said it couldn't be done properly given any amount of time!!
The NRA has proposed an instant nationwide check which should
compare the applicant's information to a list of people who have
been disallowed the use of firearms. Isn't this preferable? Or
do you just want there to be an obstacle in the way for an honest
citizen to buy any gun? Think hard about the differences between
this action and what the Brady bill professes to do.
Another standard argument for gun control is the "competency" test.
The only reason to institute such a beast is to decrease the number
of accidental deaths, yet the accidental death count has been steadily
decreasing since the turn of the century in spite of a significant
increase in the per capita ownership of firearms! I think that there
is still some work to be done in the area of firearms safety, but
making it mandatory by government decree is not the way to go.
A friend of mine was killed last year in an accidental shooting.
The man who shot him was cleaning his .22 target pistol when it
accidentally went off. Perhaps you could explain how a waiting
period/background check, special training, or anything else short
of a total ban on all firearms could have changed that?
> Since posting my opinions on Usenet, I have been called silly, dumb,
> and a raving lunatic and told that I live in a fantasy world. At no
> point have I returned the insult.
Okay, how about if we lump all this together and put a "naive" label
on you? Then if you examine the whole thing and start to see the error
of your ways you will have an excuse for this early behavior. On the
other hand, if you look at the real world, and continue to believe
in the fairy tale of "reasonable gun control" you can be moved up
to the raving lunatic catagory. Is this a little more palatable?
> Even here, with the biggest insult
> of them all, this is not an attack on you but an emotional defense
> aimed at regaining my honor, if I ever had any to lose. :^)
It would benefit you to adopt a more objective attitude instead
of an emotional viewpoint. No legislative action, specifically
gun control, should ever be based on an emotional foundation.
Yet the entire soapbox of HCI, etc is build on the tired old
"baby-killing" aspects of firearms. Gun control doesn't work
in the real world, yet the emotional fortress built by the
proponents of it won't allow them to see the facts. Why do
you think they become so active immediately after an incident
such as the stockton shooting? Because that's when people
feel the "need" to act. Emotion obscures objectivity.
**********************************************************************
Subject: Scumbag Federal Judge: 'Niggers Have No Right to Have Guns in Projects'
[ Sorry if there are any typos! J.K. ]
12/5/90
Judge Upholds Housing Project Gun Ban
by Jean McNair
Associated Press Writer
Richmond, Va. - A federal judge upheld a ban on guns in the city's
public housing projects, setting a precedent for the rest of the
nation, the housing authority director said Tuesday.
The ruling Monday by U.S. District Judge Richard L. Williams marked
the first time a court has decided whether public housing residents
can be barred from having guns, said Richard Gentry, executive
director of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
Gentry said guns also are banned in public housing projects in
Chicago, but that ban has not been challenged in court.
"This is a unique court case," he said. "Now this can be used as a
precedent throughout the country."
Williams said the ban was "part of a good faith effort to improve the
safety and quality of life in public housing."
Richmond, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country,
has been plagued by drug-related shootings and other violence at its
4,500 public housing units. A third of the city's 600 shootings a
year take place in public housing complexes, evidence showed.
In its lawsuit challenging the gun ban and other provisions of a new
lease, the Richmond Tenants Organization said the requirements made
the city's 14,000 public housing residents second-class citizens.
Williams issued an injunction that kept the lease from going into
effect last month, but after hearing testimony last week upheld all
but a few of the lease provisions.
"The widespread presence of drugs and guns have created an atmosphere
of fear and intimidation which now permeates the public housing
developments," he wrote.
"There is substantial evidence that eliminating guns will reduce
crime in the developments and reduce accidental death. Despite
conflicting expert testimony, this court finds that a prohibition on
firearms from public housing is a reasonable lease term," Williams
added.
He permitted specific bans on firearms, blackjacks, explosive devices
and nunchucks, a martial arts weapon. He struck a line banning
"weapons of any type" because that could mean kitchen knives or
anything else used to hurt someone.
Williams also struck a provision that would have caused tenants to
lose their lease if they committed misdemeanor drug or alcohol
violations away from the public housing area.
Alma Barlow, president of the tenants organization, said she was
disappointed with the ruling but had not decided whether to appeal.
Lawyers for the Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, which represented
the tenants, would not comment.
Gentry said tenants would be given civil court hearings before being
thrown out for violating the lease.
"It has never been our intent nor will it ever be to conduct raids on
residents or to hassle our residents," he said. "When we become
aware of a problem, we will be able to take action."
----------------------
[Stephen P. Halbrook]
"Section 1 of the bill, which was taken partly from Section 2 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and survives today as 42 U.S.C. 1983
was meant to enforce Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment by
establishing a remedy for deprivation under color of state law of
federal constitutional rights of all people, not only former slaves.
This portion of the bill provided:
That any person who, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State shall
subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the
jurisdiction of the United States to the DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, privileges, or immunities to which ... he is entitled
under the Constitution or laws of the United States,
shall... be liable to the party injured in an action at law,
suit in equity, or other propoer proceeding for redress...
Id. pt. 2. Appendix, 68, 17 Stat. 13 (1871)
**********************************************************************
The aim of gun control is annihilation
by Russ Meek
Chicago Defender
February 10, 1982
Jane Byrne's "gun-control law" is really a "people-control law," but
she lacks the guts to say it. Gun control has always been a
convenient out for those unable or unwilling to address themselves to
the real problems of our society. But, believe you me, gun control
will not protect you from crime, and its counterpart, violence.
It was with controlled rage that we watch Mayor Jane Byrne walk into
the City Hall Gun-Control Bill Hearing, in the City Council Chambers,
accompanied by eighteen armed men, then sit down and say that "if
anyone in Chicago needs a gun to survive, then something is wrong."
(Can you believe that?) It was the epitome of white authoritarian
chauvinism; it was the essense of contempt for the black majority
population in Chicago; it was a blatant attempt to obfuscate the
issues involved; it was indicative of the vast disparity in value
placed on white ruling class life and that of black folks.
It is historical fact that Adolf Hitler instituted gun registration,
gun confiscation, and then the annihilation of six million Jews and
objectors to his policies. This was accompanied by World War II and
the direct loss of some sixty-million lives, and God knows how many
lives were lost indirectly. We are rapidly descending into the same
pit! The passage of the 'Jane Byrne-Ed Burke Gun Control Bill' must
be "stopped cold!" We must brook no compromise on this "anti-black
and brown, Nazi legislation!"
We have not, and will not, ever let it be said that we have abandoned
our homes, our families, or our communities to the criminal element.
We feel a profound sense of security in the possession of a handgun,
because years ago someone engraved these words on the barrel of a
Colt revolver: "Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size.
When danger threatens, call on me. I will equalize."
Gun control will not make our streets safe; gun control will not
solve the problem of massive unemployment; gun control will not get
rid of the roaches, rats, mice, or the slum landlords and their
exorbitant rents; gun control will not stop and has not stopped
police brutality; gun control will not stop the peddling of dope in
our community; gun control has not improved our rotten education
system; gun control has not lowered the ever-rising crime rate; gun
control will not stop the rape of women and children; gun control
will not stop the home invader, the mugger, the arsonist, the car
thief, the armed robber or the crooked politician. In fact, in
Washington, D.C., the "Uncle Tom Mayor" had the most rigid gun law
(with the exception of Morton Grove, Illinois) in the country passed;
and the violent crime rate (including murders) rose 36 percent during
the first two years!
Fewer than three-tenths of one percent of firearm owners are involved
in any crime involving firearms (did you hear that?)! Plato favored a
disarmed populace as essential to an absolute monarch and extreme
hiearchy. Aristotle once asked of such a state, "Are farmers and
craftsmen to have no share in government; are they or they not to
possess arms?" Aristotle also criticized Hippodamus, in whose ideal
state "the farmers have no arms and the workers would have neither
land or arms -- making them virtual servants of those who do possess
arms." Aristotle held that _having_ arms_ is_ requisite_ for_ true_
citizenship_ and_ participation_ in_ policy_ making_. Aristotle
further stated "Tyranny rests on a mistrust and disarming of the
people." These are quotes from Plato's _Republic_, page 275, and
Aristotle's _Politics_, pages 68, 79, 136, 157-8, 218 and 273.
Listen to this from Cicero's _Selected_Political_Speeches_, page 222:
"Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself permits self-defense
because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what it does,
instead, is forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to
kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of
the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who uses arms in
self-defense is not regarded as having carried them with homicidal
aim."
Now, let me quote from Antebellum (Pre-Civil War) Judicial
Construction. Although the Supreme Court had never construed the
Second Amendment, prior to the Dred Scott decision in 1857 (See Scott
vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. - 19HOW. -393[1856]), judicial opinion stressed
the need for an armed populace to counter the threat of tyranny,
whether its source was foreign or domestic. Supreme Court Chief
Justice Story stressed the significance of the Second Amendment,
thusly: "The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly
been considered the palladium of the liberties of the Republic; since
it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and the
arbritrary powers of rulers, and will generally -- even if these are
successful (e.g., the rulers did manage to usurp the rights of the
people) -- enable the people to resist and triumph over them." This
is from the Commentaries on the Constitution by Justice Story, page
1833.
Our theme song should be: "This is my life, and I will let no one
take away my right to defend it or tell me how I should initiate that
defense." This applies to my family, my property, my community and my
sacred right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! If Jane
Byrne and the rest of the jive politicos were as worried about our
rights as they were about the rights of people in and from foreign
countries, the gun control bill would be in the wastebasket, where it
belongs. No politician who votes for any part of this bill should be
re-elected; and that includes Danny K. Davis, who betrayed the trust
of the people in him; Rev. George Riddick and Jesse Jackson's
Operation PUSH; and Leon Finney of TWO [Note: TWO is The Woodlawn
Organization] (Riddick and Finney are not elected officials, but
joined our enemies and testified for registration, confiscation and
annihilation).
Le me close with a quote from my deceased mother: "Those who are free
should never give up their weapons. They may well need them to become
free. When they free themselves, they will need their arms to keep
their freedom."
Now, run and tell that, will you?
(end)
**********************************************************************
In article <14570@fluke.COM> witters@tc.fluke.COM (John Witters) writes:
>
>If the magnitude of the yelp it's causing is any indication, a group of
>physicians, primarily from Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., has struck exceedingly
>close to the bone with a handgun study they published last November in the
>New England Journal of Medicine.
>
>The study was entitled "HANDGUN REGULATIONS, CRIME, ASSAULTS, AND HOMICIDE: A
>Tale of Two Cities." The principal author was Dr. John Henry Sloan, a
>research
>fellow at the University of Washington, and the Harborview Injury Prevention
>and Research Center.
GUNS AND SPUTTER
by James D. Wright
(from July 1989 issue of REASON, Free Minds & Free Markets)
Someone once wrote: "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is
suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." The problem is demonstrated
by the most recent entry in a long line of scientific research purporting
to show a causal link between gun availability and homicide. Funded by
the federal government and published last year in the New England Journal
of Medicine, the study compared homicide rates in Seattle and Vancouver and
suggested that a handgun ban "may reduce the rate of homicide in a
community."
The nine medical doctors who published "Handgun Regulations, Crime,
Assaults, and Homicide" essentially reasoned in three steps: (1) Despite
many historical, social, and demographic similarities, (2) Vancouver
has a markedly lower homicide rate (3) because its stricter gun regulations
make guns less available. The second step in their reasoning seems
indisputable. The overall homicide rate in Seattle (for the period
1980-86) was 11.3 per 100,000 popuation, compared with 6.9 in Vancouver.
Homicide is definitely more common in Seattle. The question then becomes,
Why?
The authors present a believable although not entirely accurate case
to support the notion, as claimed in the third step of their reasoning,
that Vancouver's handgun regulations are much more stringent. But their
evidence on the difference in gun *availabilty* is indirect and
unpersuasive; indeed, they acknowledge that direct evidence on the point
does not exist. They offer two fragments of inferential data in support
of the claim that guns are more available in Seattle; but for all anybody
knows as a matter of empirical fact, the opposite could be true. We
are therefore being asked, at the conclusion of the study, to believe that
a difference in gun availability explains the difference in homicide rates
when a difference in gun availability has not itself been established.
Indeed, the situation is even more troublesome. The first of the two
indirect bits of evidence is a difference between the number of concealed-
weapons permits issued in Seattle and the number of restricted-weapons
permits issued in Vancouver. Differences between the two cities in the
permit regulations render these two numbers strictly noncomparable.
* The second bit of evidence is "Cook's gun prevalence index," which stands
* at 41 percent for Seattle but only 12 percent for Vancouver. Cook's index
* however, does not measure the relative prevalence of gun ownership in
* various cities. It measures gun misuse--it is an average of the percentage
* of homicides and suicides involving firearms.
* In the present case, the index shows only that in homicides and suicides,
* firearms are more likely to be used in Seatte than in Vancouver. To take
* Cook's index as a measure of general firearms availability, it must be
* assumed that the proportional involvement of guns in homicides and suicides
* is directly related to their relative availability in the general
* population. But this is exactly what the authors are seeking to prove. To
* assume what one is seeking to prove, then to "prove" it on the basis of
* that assumption does not constitute scientific evidence for anything.
Even if we were to grant, on the basis of no compelling evidence, that
guns are less common in Vancouver, we might still question what causes what.
The authors attribute Seattle's higher crime rate to a higher rate of gun
ownership. But it might well be argued that low crime or homicide rates
reduce the motivation for average citizens to obtain guns--in other words,
that crime rates explain the variation in gun ownership, not vice versa.
In fact, it was once commonly argued that Great Britain's low rate of
violent crime was a function of that nation's strict gun laws and the
consequent low rate of gun ownership--until British researcher Colin
Greenwood found that Great Britain had enjoyed low rates of violent crime
for many decades before strict firearms controls were enacted. To invoke
an ancient methodological saw, correlation is not cause.
Nor do the problems with this study end with its lack of direct data
on gun ownership. The authors say Seattle and Vancouver are "similar in
many ways," implying that they differ mainly in gun availability, gun-law
stringency, and crime rates. This is an evident attempt to establish
the ceteris paribus condition of a sound scientific analysis--that "all
else is equal" among things being compared.
* Clearly the two cities are similar in some ways, but a closer look
* reveals differences in ways that are relevant to their respective crime
* or homicide rates. The cities are closely matched in what percentage
* of their population is white (79 percent and 76 percent). But Seattle
* is about 10 percent black, while Vancouver is less than 0.5 percent.
* Vancouver's minority population is overwhelmingly Asian. So although the
* authors show that th two cities are approximately comparable on a half-
* dozen readily available demographic indicators, they have not shown
* that all potentially relevant sources of variation have been ruled out.
* In fact, the differences in racial compositions of the two cities is
* particularly relevant in light of the study's breakdown of homicide rates
* according to the race of the victim. For the white majority, the homicide
* rates are nearly identical--6.2 per 100,000 in Seattle, 6.4 in Vancouver.
* The differing overall homicide rates in the two cities are therefore due
* entirely to vastly different rates among racial minorities. For blacks,
* the observed difference in homicide rate is 36.6 to 9.5 and for Hispanics
* 26.9 to 7.9. (Methodoligical complexities render the Asian comparison
* problematic, but it too is higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.) Racial
* minorities are much more likely to be the victims of homicide in Seattle
* than in Vancouver; the white majority is equally likely to be slain
* in either city.
Since the nearly 2:1 initial difference in homicide reates between the
cities is due exclusively to 3:1 or 4:1 differences between minority
groups, it is fair to ask why postulated difference in "gun availability"
(or gun-law strigency) would matter so dramatically to minorities but not
matter at all to whites. Can differential gun availability explain why
blacks and Hispanics--but not whites--are so much more likely to be killed
in Seattle than in Vancouver? (Studies in the United States, incidentally,
do not show large or consistent racial differences in gun ownership.)
Or are other explanations more plausible? Could the disparity between
Canadian and American rates of poverty among racial minorities have
anything to do with it? What are the relative rates of drug or alcohol
abuse? Of homelessness among each cty's minority population? (The city
of Seattle runs the largest shelter for homeless men west of the
Mississippi.) Unemployment among young, central-city, nonwhite men in the
United States usually exceeds 40 percent. What is the comparable Canadian
percentage?
The crucial point is that Canada and the United States differ in many
ways, as do cities and population subgroups with the two countries. Absent
more detailed analysis, nearly any of these "many ways" might explain part
or all of the difference in homicide rates. In gross comparisons such
as those between Seattle and Vancouver, all else is *not* equal.
* The authors of this study acknowledge that racial patterns in homicide
* result in a "complex picture." They do not acknowledge that the ensuing
* complexities seriously undercut the main thrust of their argument. They
* also acknowledge that "socio-economic status is probably an important
* confounding factor in our comparison," remarking further that "blacks
* in Vancouver had a slightly higher mean income in 1981 than the rest of
* Vancouver's population." Given the evidence presented in the article,
* it is possible that all of the difference in homicide rates between Seattle
* and Vancouver results from greater proverty among Seattle's racial
* minorities. But the authors pay no further attention to this possibility,
* since "detailed information about household incomes according to race
* is not available for Vancouver."
The largely insurmountable methodological difficulties confronted in
gross comparative studies of this sort can be illustrated with as simple
example. If one were to take all U.S. couties and compare them in terms
of (1) pervalence of gun ownership and (2) crime or homicide rates, one
would find an astonishing pattern: Counties with more guns have less crime.
Would one conclude from this evidence alone that guns actually reduce
crime? Or would one insist that other variables also be taken into
account? In this example, the "hidden variable" is city size: Guns are
more common in small towns and rural areas, whereas crime is a big-city
problem. If researchers failed to anticipate this variable, or lacked the
appropriate data to examine its possible consequences, they coud be very
seriously misled. In the study at hand, the authors matched two cities
for size but not for minority poverty rates or other hidden variables,
and their results are impossible to interpret.
In the editorial "Firearm Injuries: A Call for Science" accompanying
the study, two officials from the Centers for Disease Control lauded the
authors for applying "scientific methods" to a problem of grave public
heath significance. But in attempting to draw causal conclusions from
nonexperimental research, the essence of scientific method is to anticipate
plausible alternative explanations for the results and try to rule them
out. Absent such effort, the results may well seem scientific but are
little more than polemics masquerading as serious research. That this
study is but one of a number of recent efforts--all employing practically
identical research designs and published in leading scientific journals--
is cause for further concern.
[James D. Wright is professor of sociology at Tulane University. He has
researched extensively on the relationship of firearms and crime.]
Reason published monthly except combined August-September issue by the Reason
Foundation, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. Subscription rate: $24.00
per year.
Reason Foundation
2716 Ocean Park Blvd.
Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA 90405
**********************************************************************
> What percentage of firearms are actually ever used for self
>defense (everyone was certain that criminals were about to kill
>them in their beds)?
I don't have percentages, but there an estimated 645,000 handgun
defenses a year in the United States. Add long guns and you get over
1,000,000 defenses (by civilians, I might add).
>What percentage of firearms end up being a factor in accidents?
Again, I don't have percentages but I do have the following chart
prepared by Phil Ronzone (hope I spelled that right!).
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
#### ###
#### ###
#### ### #
#### ### ### ### ###
#### ### ### ### ### ###
#### ### ### ### ### ### ### vvv
------------------------------------------------------------------
48,700 11,300 5,300 4,800 4,400 3,200 1,400 1,000
motor falls drowning fires poison choking guns poison
vehicles lq/sld gas
Accidental deaths by firearms are pretty far down the list, as you can
see. When compared to the 100,000,000 or so civilian firearms the numers
are insignificant.
>I remember hearing something on NPR about gun accidents being a
>major cause of deaths of teenagers. Where does this cause rank
>compared to accidental drownings, drug deaths, etc.? What I
>remember hearing is that it's #1, but admittedly I don't remember
> exactly.
Don't expect accurate figures from Nation Socialist Radio! They
consistently mislead the public on matters related to gun control. In
reality, gun accidents are nowhere near the top of accidental death causes
of teenagers (and most accidental deaths are from long guns, not pistols).
Here's another of Phil's charts with the numbers.
Subject: RKBA.004 - Children and firearms
From: pkr@ronco.sgi.com (pkr @ Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA)
Version 1.1 (last changed on 90/04/25 at 21:44:23).
DESCRIPTION
============
One of the most emotional issues that people confront is death. Death
of children can be even more emotional, playing on our concern for the
young and helpless. . Shortly after the February 6, 1989 issue of TIME
magazine, a fairly long lived debate began in talk.politics.guns on the
issue of children killed by firearms.
Letters to TIME magazine in the weeks that followed that issue
claimed figures such as "over 3,400 children" are killed each year by
firearms. One poster to talk.politics.guns claimed that the figure was
"ten thousand children" killed each year.
In actuality, the total number of children (ages up to and including
14) killed by firearms, deliberately or accidently, is typically 500
to 600 a year.
SUMMARY
=======
Total firearm deaths for children (<1 through 14) at 587 (1988) is
one of the SMALLEST causes of deaths in children. Cars, falls, burns,
drowning, food ingestion are all much larger cause of deaths (7,988).
Deaths of all types, including firearms, rise dramatically starting
at age 15, peaking at 17 through 22 (the really dangerous years).
CONCLUSION ========== The use of the phrase "thousands of children
killed" is an emotional propagandistic phrase designed to play on our
worst fears. Be aware that TIME magazine has printed a letter from a
"doctor" who claimed that 3,312 children are killed "by guns" each
year. The only way to achieve that figure is to count as children all
people from age 0 through and including 24!
(Ages 0 through 24 is a common statistical grouping in many sources).
Watch out for inclusion of ages 16, 17, and 18 into the "children"
group. IMHO, children can not drive, drink beer, or join the military,
all things possible in those three years.
MURDERS AND NON-NEGLIGENT HOMICIDES (1988)
AGE By firearms Other (cutting, stabbing, blunt objects, poison...)
< 1 10 230
1 to 4 44 289
5 to 9 56 96
10 to 14 136 91
-------- --- ---
246 706
Total deaths (accidental and non-murder) ages up to and including 24
were 54,207 (1985). In 1985, total firearm accidental and non-murder
deaths was 755 for the same age group.
AGE Accidental deaths by firearms
<1 2
1 5
2 12
3 10
4 14
5 9
6 9
7 10
8 12
9 18
10 27
11 23
12 37
13 38
14 52
---
278
15 57
16 52
17 42
--- ---
429
FUTURE
======
As I do the research, I will break these statistics down into 1 year
increments, using 1989 statistics, from ages 0 through 24.
Sources: NSC88, TIME06FEB89, UCR89.
Phil Ronzone pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr
**********************************************************************
The following article appeared in the
Winter Issue of The Illinois Shooter,
The official publication of the
Illinois State Rifle Association
Post Office Box 7464,
Round Lake, Illinois, 60073
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
By Those Who Designed, Constructed,
and Erected It.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed."
Problems with the interpretation? Well, let's ask some of the
people who should know; the men who wrote the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, AND the Second Amendment.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON:
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the
people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms."
"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to
our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we
cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the
ambition of others."
RICHARD HENRY LEE:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially
when young, how to use them."
"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its
liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and sol-
dier in those destined for the defense of the state...Such are a
well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and
husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as
individuals, and their rights as freemen."
TENCH COXE:
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is
in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not
so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY
OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free
commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when com-
pared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresisti-
ble. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it
feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his
own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their
swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are
the birth-right of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the
sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state govern-
ments, but, where I trust in God it ever will remain, in the
hands of the people."
JOHN DEWITT:
"It is asserted by the most resepectable writers upon govern-
ment, that a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of
the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free
people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia
composed of freemen."
JAMES MADISON:
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ...the
Americans possess over the people of all other nations...Notwith-
standing the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of
Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will
bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
"Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or
have been in Actual Rebellion."
PATRICK HENRY:
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is
able may have a gun."
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect
everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will
preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that
force, you are ruined."
"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our
only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of
what service would militia be to you when, most probably, you
will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to
be provided by Congress, they may or may not provide them."
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own
defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our
own possession and under our own direction, and having them under
the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of
having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more
propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
ZACHRIAH JOHNSON:
"...[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
SAMUEL ADAMS:
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to au-
thorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the
rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceful citizens from keeping their own arms...."
GEORGE WASHINGTON:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present
day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure
peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere re-
strains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all
that's good."
"A free people ought...to be armed."
"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well
prepared to meet the enemy."
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of
preserving peace."
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers
are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the
right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty
must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots
and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
GEORGE MASON:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people,
except for a few public officials."
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to
enslave them."
**********************************************************************
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank