Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 23:13:01 -0500 (EST)
From: [d--y] at [adrian.adrian.edu]
To: Multiple recipients of list <[n--b--n] at [mainstream.net]>
Subject: KIDSGUNS.TXT
CHILDREN AND GUNS
The NRA's Perception of the Problem
and Its Policy Implications
by
PAUL H. BLACKMAN, Ph.D.
Research Coordinator
Institute for Legislative Action
National Rifle Association
1994
A paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Society of Criminology
Miami, Florida, November 9-12
Introduction: Problem or Excuse?
In explaining why the push for more restrictive gun laws
should begin with the problem of children and firearms, the federal
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the special
"violence" issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA), explained: "There is no controversy in the area of
children having unsupervised access to loaded guns. No one
believes that children should have unsupervised access to guns, but
few people are doing anything to prevent children from having such
access. This, at least, is a place to start...while we in public
health continue to explore the scientific issues associated with
this question, through careful research and the evaluation of
existing programs designed to reduce ready access to guns."
(Rosenberg et al., 1992)
But was the issue to be addressed as an excuse or because
there was a serious problem crying out for scientific research and
policy changes? The timing of the interest by the CDC and others
is curious. In 1984, the CDC was clearly interested in focusing
its study of violence on firearms, but noted, anonymously, that the
"violence branch is in a fledgling state. If it steps too hard on
the gun issue, it would be squashed in a heartbeat." (Meredith,
1984:46) To focus safely on firearms, the CDC had to find an
issue. Children provide an interesting basis for suggesting
restricting access to firearms. Children are innocent, where so
many adults involved with firearms abuse are not -- although much
of the problem of gun-related violence among young persons involves
post-pediatric but pre-adult teenagers. But, as was noted, no one
defends unsupervised access to firearms by children.
But even among children, most of the increase in firearm
misuse had peaked by about 1979-81 (Fingerhut and Kleinman, 1989),
and the trend of firearm misuse, among women and children in
particular, was downward during the early 1980s. The National
Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH, now the Coalition to Stop Gun
Violence [CSGV]) and Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), however, had
begun focusing on children's misuse of firearms as a particular
problem by the mid-1980s, and the CDC followed suit, by getting
Congress to authorize such concern with injury deaths among
"children" in 1986.
Fortunately for those wishing to use children as an excuse for
cracking down on firearms freedom, the situation began to get worse
in the late 1980s and into the 1990s, and the reality began to
approach some of the rhetoric of the gun control advocates such as
the CSGV, HCI, and the CDC. Rhetorically, these anti-gun groups
insisted that increased availability and deadliness of firearms
explain the change. But firearms availability has not increased.
Gun and handgun ownership levels have been stable since the mid-
1970s, with the market for firearms stagnant throughout most of the
1980s. (Kleck, 1991:Table 2.2; Howe, 1992) Semi-automatic pistols
were being considered for government adoption a century ago
(Shooting and Fishing 17:5, October 25, 1894), with the large-
capacity Browning Hi-Power 9 mm. pistol first produced nearly 60
years ago. With handgun ammunition more a factor in potential
"deadliness" of a gun than the handgun itself, the last major
innovation popularizing a potentially deadlier round came with the
.44 Magnum in the 1950s. And, in addition to being used rarely
in crime, particularly by juveniles (Kleck, 1991:ch. 3 and 1992),
rifles misleadingly characterized as "assault weapons" are
distinguished from hunting and battle rifles by using reduced-power
ammunition, slightly more powerful than some handgun ammunition.
A dramatic change in homicide and other criminal violence,
particularly when sharply limited to a particular portion of
society, would better be explained by that which has changed than
by that which has not. And there were two major changes in the
late 1980s. First, the CDC was empowered by Congress to address
and reduce levels of injury among young persons. While the CDC has
been able to do nothing to reduce the amount of violence, its
impotence is not the cause of increased violence. The second major
change was the introduction of crack cocaine to the inner city,
with some minimal additional use in some suburbs and small towns.
What is surprising is that, with warnings that crack cocaine was
coming and that the results would be disastrous, its arrival led to
the suggestion that handguns had suddenly become more available and
deadlier.
Reality has not caught up with the rhetoric, however. Part of
the expressed justification for the current emphasis is that
firearms violence has spread to the suburbs and rural areas, and is
not confined to inner-city blacks. That was the reason given by
Dr. George Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, and Lois Fingerhut, of the CDC's National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), at the press conference held in
Washington, D.C., on June 9, 1992, to herald the release of the
June 10th issue of the Journal, and the release of the June issues
of nine other AMA publications, each of which featured at least one
article on the subject of violence.
The head of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control apparently even thought it worth distorting data in
order to emphasize that the problem affects everyone equally. In
reporting on a dramatic rise in homicide among males 15-19 years
old between 1985 and 1991, the CDC report (CDC, 1994c) did not
break down the increase by race because Dr. Mark Rosenberg did not
want to give the impression that "this is a racial problem,"
insisting "It is a national problem with the same trends for whites
and black, and the curve looks the same." (New York Times,
October 14, 1994, p. A22) In fact, between 1985 and 1990, in that
age group, black homicide victimization increased twice as fast as
white, to 115.8 per 100,000, compared to 12.6 for whites. Firearm
use in homicide rose from 69.3% to 76.7% for white homicides, but
from 80.2% to 90.9% of black homicides. (Fingerhut, 1993) Using
FBI data, and numbers, killings of blacks (male and female) 15-19
increased 146%, from 651 to 1600 between 1985 and 1991, while
killings of whites rose 59%, also from 651, but to 1,035 (FBI,
1986:9; 1992:16)
Rosenberg is not consistent in determining what trends are
similar and which dramatically different. He emphasizes that the
problem is with 15-19-year-old males, because their homicide
victimization rate rose 154%, which was over twice the increase
among 20-24-year-old males (76%), even though the rate for 20-24-
year-old males is still 25% higher than that for 15-19-year-old
males. Yet the black teenage homicide rate increase was similarly
twice as fast as that for whites, with a resultant rate over eight
times higher. (FBI, 1986 and 1992; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987
and 1993) Dr. Rosenberg and the CDC wish to deceive the American
people into believing the problem is universal, and thus the
solution must similarly be widespread -- even as the actual report
suggests that the underlying factors for the dramatic increase in
homicide are "poverty, inadequate educational and economic
opportunities, social and family instability, and frequent personal
exposure to violence as an acceptable or preferred method of
resolving disagreements." (CDC, 1994c:726-727) Those problems are
not uniformly spread throughout American society. If they were,
black and white homicide rates and trends would look the same.
The notion that it affects everyone is a commonly expressed
message in the popular media, even though it seems to include the
somewhat racist implication that society was justified in not
worrying about violence if only African Americans and Hispanics
were its victims. For example, "The problem is not confined to big
cities like New York and Los Angeles. Kids have been gunned down
in small towns like Obetz, Ohio, and Crosby, Texas." (DeClaire,
1992:30-32.) Or "this onslaught of childhood violence knows no
boundaries of race, geography, or class." (Henkoff, 1992)
But saying something has occurred some place is different from
establishing that the problem approaches being similarly serious
all places. One of the articles released by the CDC in JAMA
emphasized the vast degree of difference in the problem of
violence, homicide, and gun-related homicide among different
groups. The gun-related homicide rate among males 15-19 years of
age varied dramatically based upon race and location. Among big-
city blacks, the rate was about 144 per 100,000; among rural
blacks, the rate was 89% lower, at 15. In central cities, the
white rate was about 21 (Fingerhut et al., 1992), and an analysis
of some of the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports would suggest
this means the non-Hispanic white rate was probably in the 10-12
range, as do limited data from the NCHS, and the state of
California. (Fingerhut et al., 1994:6-8; Nieto et al., 1994:7-8)
For the most part, gun-related violence is a growing problem
among young urban black -- and Hispanic -- males. For girls,
women, and men over the age of 30, gun-related violence was stable
or decreasing in the 1980s. (Fingerhut and Kleinman, 1989;
Fingerhut et al., 1991; Hammett et al., 1992) Even one of the
articles describing the problem as "epidemic" noted that the 50%
increase in mortality of late in the "urban pediatric population"
occurred with no change or a slight decline in the suburban and
national pediatric populations. (Ropp et al., 1992)
Another way to exaggerate the harm to children and adolescents
is to count not gun-related deaths, but Years of Potential Life
Lost (YPLL, or YPLL-65), which counts the difference in years
persons in age groups died, on average, and the amount of years
they would have lived, it they had reached age 65. It is a method
geared toward maximizing the harm associated with the misuse of
firearms, since most of the recent increases in gun-related deaths
are explained by homicide involving children, adolescents, and
young adults.
The use of the technique exaggerates the increase in homicide,
and gun-related homicide, by making homicide a more serious death
than other deaths, and allows the CDC to suggest that, rather than
constituting the eighth or ninth leading "cause" of death,
firearms are the fourth leading cause of death (CDC, 1994a). It is
a peculiar technique. Whereas the medical profession, in general,
values all human life equally, the YPLL approach says that when an
eleven-year-old Chicago gang-member, suspected of murder, is shot
to death by his colleagues (Washington Post, September 2, 1994, p.
A1), his death represents over 50 YPLL, over twice the loss to
society of a middle-aged diabetic. When another 11-year-old
Chicagoan confesses to beating an 84-year-old widow to death
(Washington Post, September 4, 1994, p. A14), her death constitutes
zero YPLL; it quite literally does not count as a loss to society.
More importantly, some of the rhetoric approaches the absurd,
particularly when voiced by politicians. President Bill Clinton
has been quoted as saying: "America is the only country in the
civilized world where a teenager can walk the street at random and
be better armed than most police forces," and that the Founding
Fathers never envisioned a time when "children on our streets would
be illegally in possession of weapons solely designed to kill other
people and have more weapons than the people who were supposed to
be policing them." (League of Women Voters of Texas Education
Fund, 1994:8)
Observations by Rutgers University constitutional law
professor Robert Cottrol are as applicable to the guns of children
as to those in general: "The framers of course lived in a world
where the weapons of standing armies and armed civilians were not
that dissimilar....Modern technology has of course changed this
equation. The imbalance between military forces and the armed
citizenry has increased and definitely to the advantage of the
armed forces." (Cottrol, 1994:xxxviii) To a lesser extent, the
same is true with regard to the police, especially as they have
access to military equipment, if not manpower, if they assert a
drug nexus, and they are allowed fully-automatic firearms normally
denied to ordinary citizens and most assuredly not possessed by
more than a few teenagers. At worst, the guns young criminals
prefer are similar to those preferred by the police (Sheley and
Wright, 1993); at best, their guns are smaller, cheaper, and less
reliable than the guns used by law enforcement. (Wintemute, 1994)
Furthermore, as James Wright, Joseph Sheley, and their
colleagues at Tulane University have noted, virtually everything
offensive that teenagers do with guns is already illegal. (Sheley
et al., 1992:682) Most states restrict the access and use of
firearms, particularly handguns, by children; and federal law has
long prohibited the dealer sale of firearms or ammunition to
children -- with childhood extended to age 21 in the case of
handguns -- and in recent years has prohibited firearms possession
on or near school property, although the constitutionality of that
ban is before the U.S. Supreme Court in its October 1994 term.
In Rose Garden remarks on April 25, 1994, Clinton went on: "I
also believe there's something wrong with our country being the
site of 90 percent of the youth homicides in the entire world --
don't you?" Data from the World Health Organization would suggest
that Brazil has nearly as many homicides of 15-24 year olds as the
United States. (WHO, 1989; FBI, 1993) Ignoring problems of
defining "youth" and "homicide," and ignoring the killings of youth
in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, and other trouble spots, the truth is
probably nearer the reverse of the President's observation.
Neither Lois Fingerhut of the NCHS, nor James Mercy of the CDC were
able to suggest any basis for the President's calculations.
(Personal communications)
The fact that the problem of firearm-related violence among
children was invented as an excuse for imposing restrictions on
firearms owned by adults does not, of course, mean there is no real
problem.
Nor, however, does admission that there is a problem mean
solutions are easy or automatic. CDC spokesmen are in the position
of both endorsing piecemeal legislative experiments aimed primarily
at the young (Rosenberg et al., 1992; Stevens, 1994:30), and
implicitly denouncing such limited approaches: "The United States
has never tried a comprehensive approach to preventing firearm
injuries. Federal laws regulating firearms are piecemeal,
underenforced, and do not treat firearms as the dangerous consumer
products they are." And acknowledgement that there is a problem
does not mean, as the anti-gun representatives at the CDC believe,
that "firearm deaths and injuries are largely predictable and
preventable" by any current scientific approach. (Interdepartmental
Working Group on Violence, 1994:19) When the CDC and its
supporters kept insisting that violence was a public-health issue,
it was largely a matter of opinion, neither true nor false
objectively, and if public-health professionals wished to look at
the matter, that was their option. Asserting the violence is, or
that firearm-related injuries or deaths are, "preventable" is a
statement subject to validation, and there has been nothing from
the CDC to validate the assertion.
Current Laws Regarding Children and Firearms
In addition to a clear understanding of the nature of the
actual problems involving children -- including adolescents -- and
their misuse of firearms, any serious attempt to determine sound
policy changes requires at least noting what current policy is. As
Sheley et al. (1992:682) noted: "[I]t is useful to point out that
nearly everything that leads to gun-related violence among youths
is already against the law. What is needed are not new and more
stringent gun laws but rather a concerted effort to rebuild the
social structure of inner cities."
Since they made that statement, gun laws affecting children
have gotten more restrictive. In addition to state and local curbs
on children possessing firearms in a variety of circumstances, a
ban on the purchase of firearms and ammunition from federally-
licensed dealers has been in place since 1968. And in addition to
a relatively new federal ban on guns on or relatively near school
grounds, and a new requirement that states adopt legislating
mandating expulsion for at least one year of students who bring
guns on to school grounds, the new omnibus crime law prohibits the
possession of handguns or handgun-only ammunition by, or transfer
to, minors, defined as persons under the age of 18 [110201].
There are exceptions for some sporting use, transportation,
use in employment, and possession with the prior written consent of
a parent or guardian not prohibited by federal, state, or local law
from possessing a firearm. And there is a limited exception for
possession for use for protection, but only from an "intruder into
the residence" of the juvenile or where the juvenile is an invited
guest. Without prior written permission, possession to protect a
minor's mother from her murder-bent husband would be a federal
crime; if the minor's mother told her child where to get the gun
for protection, she, too, might be a criminal for having
transferred the gun illegally to the minor.
In addition, the law calls upon the Attorney General, "acting
through the Director of the National Institute for Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention," to evaluate existing and proposed
handgun legislation in each state, and "develop model juvenile
handgun legislation that is constitutional and enforceable" by the
end of 1995. Since current law runs roughshod over the
constitutional concept of federalism, it is unclear how limited the
Attorney General is to feel by that mild constraint.
Enforceability is another matter; enforcing either the "gun-
free school zones" law or the ban on most childhood possession of
handguns, including on private property, is unlikely to be
systematic.
At any rate, evaluating possible additional policies should at
least recognize that most of the activities involving children and
guns which have drawn news-media attention in recent years have
long been unlawful, and that a massive curb on children possessing
handguns was implemented so recently that no evaluation of its
effectiveness will be possible -- and will not be in time for the
Attorney General's legally mandated report evaluating existing
handgun legislation.
Enforceability is also a rather serious issue. Mercy and Houk
(1988) compared the household possession of firearms as a risk
which might be studied in the way other environmental risks have
been studied, such as asbestos, radon, and lead in paint. Even
using that analogy, one might note that sensible policies suggested
not adding asbestos or lead paint to the environment, but warned
that attempting to remove existing supplies could be more dangerous
than leaving them in place.
The Nature and Extent of the Problem
Overall, the involvement of younger persons (under age 15, or
18) in violent crime was generally stable or declining from the
mid-1970s to 1987, as has been demonstrated by Gary Kleck (U.S.
House of Representatives, 1989:60-61). Since that time, there has
been a dramatic increase. The rise has not been across the board,
either in terms of who is apparently committing the crimes (based
on arrest record), or on the types of criminal violence. (FBI,
1992:220-229,279-289; 1993:221-233). But for homicide, the trend
toward youth is clear. The average age of homicide victims was
about two years younger in 1992 than in 1985. (FBI, 1986:9 and
1993:16) And the percentage of homicide arrests accounted for by
persons under the age of 20 rose from 17.4% to 28.9%. (FBI,
1986:175 and 1993:227)
For most crimes, the 1980s saw stability in the arrest rates
among white youth and other non-black races, except for slight very
recent increases. Overall, and particularly for homicide, the
black arrest rate rose dramatically. For all races, one of the
more shocking aspects of the arrest trends is that there is a
dramatically greater increase in arrests for homicide than for
other violent crimes. Violent crime arrest rates were fairly
stable from the late 1970s to the late 1980s, but then rose
substantially, while property offenses dropped. (Snyder, 1992)
Similarly, teenage victims in crime surveys indicate a decrease in
theft but with a downward trend in violent victimizations during
the early 1980s being replaced by a increase in violent
victimizations more recently, up to levels reported around 1979-81.
(Whitaker and Bastian, 1991:3)
But clear and dramatic increases in crimes involving young
persons, especially blacks, as perpetrators and victims, have
occurred. The same trend is clear with CDC data. In order to show
such dramatic increases, the CDC has to be careful to use the mid-
1980s for comparison, since the late 1970s and early 1980s will
fail to show dramatic changes, or, for some age and racial groups,
any changes, whether looking at homicide overall or at gun-related
homicide. Compared to 1979-81, only the homicide rate for infants
under the age of one has risen dramatically -- and almost none of
those homicides (roughly 4%) involve firearms. (FBI, 1993:18;
Hammett et al., 1992) For other youthful age groups (1-4, 5-9, 10-
14, 15-24), the homicide rate remained fairly stable, and for all
other age groups, the homicide rate declined during the 1980s.
(Hammett et al., 1992) The same is generally true as well for
firearm-related homicides, except among young black males up to the
age of 25, and for black females aged 10-14. For most five-year
age groups, homicide was fairly stable, declining, or rising only
modestly, between 1979 and 1988. (Fingerhut et al., 1991:7-8)
To find a dramatic upward trend in homicide and gun-related
homicide, it is necessary to use the mid-1980s at a starting point
and to emphasize young blacks, particularly males (aged 10-24), for
whom a decline in the early 1980s was followed by a much greater
increase in more recent years. Even with recent homicide
increases, the rates are sometimes lower for others, and sometimes
slightly higher than around 1979-81. (Hammett et al., 1992;
Fingerhut et al., 1991; Fingerhut, 1993) Furthermore, one has to
emphasize young blacks from central cities, since the firearm-
related homicide rates for other black teenagers are dramatically
lower. (Fingerhut et al., 1992)
And to play up the threat to "children," it is essential to
use data from the 15-19 age group, or 15-24 age group, or a 10-19
age group. For young children, the homicide rate and the gun-
related homicide rate reveal no major trend, with the greatest
overall rise among infants, where firearms are not a factor. And
even the upward trends among some age/race/sex groups below the age
of 15 are all with very small numbers and low rates -- where a
high-percentage change would not necessarily mean much. Indeed,
the homicide rates are higher for children below the age of five
than for children aged 5-14, for whom the homicide rates have
remained around 2 per 100,000 and the gun-related homicide rates
around 1 per 100,000, although gun-related homicide has risen
faster than other homicide for those 10-14 years of age. (Hammett
et al., 1992; Fingerhut et al., 1991) Yet homicide rarely involves
firearms for those youngest of children with a homicide rate about
8 per 100,000 (4% firearms), and almost as rarely for the next
youngest age group, at about 15% for 1-4 year olds. (FBI, 1993:18)
Clearly, there has been a sharp rise in the willingness of
young persons, particularly 15-24, but edging down to 10-14, to
kill one another, particularly young blacks and Hispanics from the
inner cities, and particularly among males. Without a similarly
dramatic increase in either suicides, or in other violent or
serious property offenses, the scope of the problem seems fairly
limited to criminal viciousness, among the younger members of the
most deprived groups in American society. And the increase seems
related not to changes in firearms availability or deadliness, but
to cultural changes including increased illegitimacy and use of
such highly addictive and remunerative drugs as crack cocaine.
The NRA's Perception of the Problem and Possible Solutions
Generally speaking, the National Rifle Association (NRA)
favors, particularly at the state level, regulations relating to
the access and misuse of firearms by minors, so long as those
restrictions meet certain criteria. Constitutionally, the Supreme
Court has made it clear that adult rights cannot be reduced to what
is suitable for children. [Sable Communications of California,
Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 109 S.Ct. 2829 (1989)]
Laying constitutional issues aside, it is not normal legislative
practice to limit adult access to that which is suitable for
children, be it athletic equipment, alcohol and tobacco products,
cleaning equipment, motor vehicles, or pharmaceutical products.
Even the requirement of "child proof" bottle caps allowed for
exemption for adults.
Aside from that, however, the Second Amendment -- and similar
state constitutional protections -- establish no constitutional bar
to regulating children and firearms. The "people" of the Second
Amendment -- and other portions of the Constitution -- has
traditionally meant enfranchised persons, not necessarily person
without regard to age, citizenship, criminality, or mental
capacity. And lack of citizenship, or other political rights,
frequently was understood, in the 19th century at any rate, as
undermining any claim to gun rights. (Cooley, 1898:295; Cramer,
1994:74, 85-87, 90)
This does not mean that all restrictions are appropriate, or
likely to benefit society, nor that the NRA will attempt, or
successfully lobby, to solve all of the problems related to
criminal violence among young persons, with or without firearms, or
regarding other problems involving the misuse of guns by children.
The actual solutions to those problems are expensive, long term,
and well beyond the abilities of any single organization, or,
possibly, group of organizations. Even beginning to address the
problems of gun-related violence involving children, however,
requires first determining the real nature of the changing problem
of children and firearms, noting particularly where the problem is
not.
The Circumscribed Problem of Youth Violence with Guns
NRA Members, Ordinary Gun Owners, and Their Children
There is no relationship between ordinary gun ownership and
the relatively recent increases in gun-related violence involving
children and teenagers. This is true of all types of gun-related
violence, even those which have not increased recently. Accidental
gun deaths -- which declined dramatically overall and among
children -- over the past two decades, are more apt to involve
persons associated with other reckless and often unlawful behavior
as well. (Kleck, 1991:ch. 7)
Similarly, suicide -- which increased most during the 1950s
and 1960s, peaking in the 1970s (Kopel, 1993:22-23) -- is largely
associated with mental illness or depression. CDC representatives
have dishonestly both suggested a more recent increase in teen
suicide rates and belittled depression as a cause (Rosenberg and
Mercy, 1991:9) -- despite clear research findings to the contrary,
with regards to teenage (Brent, 1987; Brent et al., 1991 and 1993)
and general suicides (Kellermann et al., 1992; O'Carroll et al.,
1991:185; Kopel, 1993:21).
Indeed, ordinary gun ownership by adults, and their
introduction of their children into the "gun culture" --
particularly as practiced by NRA members -- would appear to reduce
problems associated with teenage violence. There are two primary
bases for this statement. First, research by Alan Lizotte and his
colleagues at SUNY/Albany has found that if high schoolers'
socialization into gun ownership was by family, they are associated
with lower levels of street crimes, gun crimes, and drug use than
if they were not socialized into gun ownership at all, and much
lower than socialization into gun ownership by peers. (Lizotte
and Tesoriero, 1991; OJJDP Research Summary, March 1994, p. 18)
Other studies have noted that in rural areas, with a smaller
problem of gun-related violence, adolescent males generally are
introduced to shooting by adult male family members. (Senturia et
al., 1994:474 and n. 23)
James D. Wright and his colleagues at Tulane University, on
the other hand, confirmed the other part of the Lizotte/Tesoriero
finding: regular use of guns by juvenile offenders is more closely
associated with similar behavior by their criminal peers --
although their carrying guns was more related to protection than to
a desire to fit in. (Wright and Sheley, 1993; Sheley and Wright,
1993a:384, 387n.)
Other common risk factors associated with teenage violence in
recent years are factors rarely associated with ordinary gun
ownership, and are absent from the lives of NRA members and their
children. Troubled teens tend to come from low income homes, with
no or only one parent present, and parents with low educational
levels, but with too much of their socialization by peers rather
than parents. Problems are dramatically centered among ethnic
minorities living in the core of large cities.
The median gun owner and the median NRA member, on the other
hand, has graduated from high school and has had some college; less
than 10% lack a high-school diploma. Similarly, with most violent
teenagers from low-income homes, only 3% of gun owners and of NRA
members report incomes of less than $10,000, with about one-eighth
reporting family incomes under $20,000. The median income for both
groups is over $30,000, minimally higher among NRA members.
Similarly, gun owners in general, and NRA members in particular,
are disproportionately suburbanites or from rural areas, with only
one-fifth from urban areas. The overwhelming proportion of them
are married -- 91% of NRA members and 85% of gun owners in general
-- with less than 10% from the ethnic minorities who are suffering
from most of the recent increases in gun-related violence. (Luntz
Weber Research & Strategic Services, 1993; Kleck, 1991:ch. 2)
A survey conducted by anti-gun activists found, to their
surprise, similar results regarding handgun ownership: "Handgun
ownership was associated with living in a rural area, single-family
dwelling (house), presence of adult males in the household, fewer
than two pre-school children in the house, and at least 12 years
education of the mother." For rifle owners, in addition, there was
a "white mother, and...a significant interaction between rural area
and the family containing one or more males....
"Because firearm homicide rates are highest in poor inner-city
teens, we expected to find that homes of poor minority families
were heavily armed. Instead, reported firearm ownership was lowest
in the homes of mothers who were single and had low social status
(as measured by low educations). One possible explanation is that
mothers in these areas are particularly aware of the dangers of
guns, and so choose not to arm themselves." (Senturia et al.,
1994:472-73)
One Policy Implication: Evaluate Firearms Education
These research findings suggest the possibility that
introduction of children and teenagers to firearms by appropriate
adult models could be beneficial in reducing teen violence and gang
membership. Such an approach is being tried in limited form in
Houston and Atlanta. In Houston, the Royal Bushman Association,
started by three black NRA members working with 30 young persons,
has grown to 60 adults and 300 youngsters aged 10-18. The adults
work with the youth members, monitoring school performance and
attendance, and encourage new members to adhere to high standards
of moral behavior. And on weekends, the leaders take the inner-
city youth out of the city for experience in the wilderness,
including introduction to the shooting sports. In DeKalb county,
a similar program is being implemented with support for groups like
100 Black Men. Since the programs are still relatively new, their
effectiveness has yet to be evaluated.
Dismissal of firearms safety instruction is widespread, but
not studied. Wintemute dismissed education as irrelevant to
reducing gun violence primarily because accidents play such a small
role in firearm-related deaths, but nonetheless lobbies for other
changes in gun regulations which are also aimed primarily at
accidents, such as a call for loaded indicators and safety devices.
(Wintemute, 1987) And a massive book on reducing violence,
sponsored by the CDC, espoused many proposed cures for accidental
shootings, but expressed concern about experimenting with education
in firearms safety: "An important research question is whether the
safety benefits of such courses are outweighed by their ability to
promote an interest in firearms, an interest which increases the
number of firearms in circulation and the potential for both
intentional and unintentional injuries." (NCIPC, 1989:266)
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) dismissed education,
asserting: "No published research confirms effectiveness of gun
safety training for adolescents. Most preventive gun safety
education is directed at hunters and marksmen, but hunting and
target-shooting accidents are a small part of the adolescent
firearm problem" (AAP Committee on Adolescence, 1992:21). The
AAP went on to warn that because "gun safety education programs are
also widely available and heavily promoted, the Academy cautions
educators to choose educational programs and approaches carefully,
avoiding those that might inadvertently encourage or promote the
access of youth to firearms." More recently, the AAP warned that:
"There is no evidence that safety lessons are retained by children
at the critical times when they confront a loaded weapon." (Dolins
and Christoffel, 1994:646) No source is cited for the statement.
The only citation for anything supporting the idea that educational
efforts are ineffective is a survey indicating a lack of
relationship between gun training and proper storage of the gun.
Unfortunately, gun training included military training, where safe
storage from children has rarely been a high priority. (Weil and
Hemenway, 1992)
The CDC has opined that "educational interventions...are often
expensive and rarely result in lasting behavioral change. Some
educational interventions...may actually increase the probability
of injury." (Kellermann et al., 1991:19) The American Youth Work
Center agreed with Kellermann and his colleagues, complaining that
"many youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America and the
American Camping Association flat out promote marksmanship and gun
ownership in households with children. This organizationally
induced enthusiasm by children for guns adds up to a lot of dead
Boy Scouts and unhappy campers." (Treanor and Bijlefeld, 1989)
There is, of course, no factual basis for the last sentence.
Clearly, more study should be done on the impact of firearms
safety instruction, but public health professionals tend to dismiss
it without study while espousing numerous other proposals with even
less study. There is some indication of a relation of firearms
safety instruction to reduced accidents, particularly with regard
to hunting accidents (Kleck, 1991:ch. 7) -- and data from the
Hunter Education Association (1991) indicates that only about one-
third of hunting accidents involve shooters who are hunter
education course graduates, even though the numbers of educated
hunters, and state laws requiring instruction for hunters, would
suggest that the vast majority of hunters have such instruction.
However, the data suggesting fewer behavioral problems with
adolescents introduced to the sporting use of firearms by adults
suggests possible benefits beyond reducing accidental shootings,
which do -- as Wintemute and the AAP note -- constitute but a small
portion of the problem of teenagers misusing firearms. A study of
mentally ill and suicidal teenagers in western Pennsylvania (Brent
et al., 1991) found gun ownership levels among those adolescents
lower than might have been expected for the population as a whole,
based on the popularity of hunting, suggesting the propriety of
studying possible benefits to mental health from socialization into
the gun culture. (Blackman, 1992)
There is some evidence that the shooting sports, and training
in them, builds character, improves the ability of students to
concentrate, and is a non-sexist sport. In addition, unlike most
other secondary-school games, shooting is a non-violent, non-
contact sport. Little wonder that Thomas Jefferson found games
involving balls to be too violent and recommended the gun instead
as a character-building exercise. (Kopel, 1993:58)
Schools and the Problem of Adolescents with Guns
Much of the propaganda -- including portions of the federal
criminal code -- regarding children and guns involves the issue of
violence in the schools. The recently-enacted omnibus crime bill
-- the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 -- for
example, in calling for a national commission on crime prevention
and control [Title XXVII], has only one area specifically aimed at
youngsters, and that deals with "Violence in Schools." Other
aspects of teen violence might be covered in the general
evaluations of crime and violence, but the only two specific
references to youth violence outside of schools are tied to
immigration policy and to youth gangs. But violence in the schools
is one of just three specific aspects of crime -- the others being
drugs and violence against women -- the commission is ordered to
address.
And that omnibus crime act [320904] also provided
congressional "findings" for the previously enacted ban on gun
possession in or around schools [18 U.S.C. 922(q)], in a
fraudulent effort to establish an interstate commerce nexus which
would justify federal legislation in an area patently local, with
the goal of mooting a court decision invalidating the "gun-free
school zones" act.
While some adolescent violence occurs in and, especially,
around schools, schools generally are among the safest places for
teenagers to be. The Tulane University surveys, co-sponsored by
the U.S. Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP), focused on inner-city high schools and high-school-age
incarcerated criminals, and found carrying of guns to be related to
a perceived need for protection. And that need for protection was
primarily in strange areas and at night, and, generally, in
environments different from school. (Wright and Sheley, 1993;
Sheley et al., 1992; Sheley and Wright, 1993a and 1993b)
The Tulane sociologists conducted a more general survey of
high schools in metropolitan New Orleans and found the same general
result. While over a quarter of students at least sometimes
carried a gun outside home, only 7% ever did so at school. Related
to that, only 11% had ever been threatened with a gun at school
while 29% reported having been threatened with a gun outside of
school. (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1993)
While teenagers may be the victims of about one million
violent crimes each year, only a minority of those occur on school
grounds, with school a less likely site for older than for younger
teenagers. (Allen-Hagen and Sickmund, 1993) Victimization,
especially with a gun, appears substantially less likely to occur
at schools than in other locations. (Kopel, 1993:27-28) And the
portion of violence against teenagers occurring in schools would be
still less if more child abuse at home were reported to and
included in the victimization surveys.
A group monitoring safety in the schools, the National School
Safety Center, notes that some 35 gun-related homicides occur
annually on school grounds. (Washington Post, October 23, 1994, p.
A8) Counting students, teachers, and administrators as the
population, the resulting school homicide rate of under 0.1 per
100,000 is roughly one-hundredth the national homicide rate. To
the CDC, which notes some 102 homicides and suicides in and around
schools over a two-year period, for the same gun-related death
rate, such gun use amounts to an "epidemic." (Dvorchak, 1994)
In addition, there is relatively little actual harm from the
carrying of guns to school. One popular figure bandied about is
that in 1987 some 135,000 students carried handguns to school every
day. (Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, 1990:7) That figure is
almost certainly a drastic exaggeration. CDC surveys would suggest
that the total percentage of high-school students carrying a
handgun at some point during the preceding 30-day period was 4% or
less -- with the trend apparently for fewer persons carrying but
more frequent carrying among those who carry. (CDC, 1991 and 1992)
Since most carry infrequently, and most carrying is not to school,
an estimate is that on a given day perhaps 17,000 students have
guns in school. (Kopel, 1993:28-29)
On the other hand, it has been reported that there were about
1,700 gun-related crimes in American schools in 1986. (Kopel,
1993:28) Handgun Control, Inc., has estimated there were 272
injuries or deaths involving firearms during a four-year period
beginning in September 1986. (Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence, 1990:2) Even if those figures have increased, it would
mean that the vast majority -- 90-98% -- of carrying of guns to
school does not involve misuse of guns at school, with homicidal
misuse at 0.02-0.2% annually.
Nonetheless, Congress declared in the recent crime act
[320904] that gun-related crime was so pervasive in schools that
"States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible
to handle gun-related crime by themselves," and they find "their
efforts unavailing," and so Congress needs to impose a federal ban
on gun possession in or around schools.
Since there is some violence in schools, and for students
going to and from schools, some students with no ill will may carry
guns or, more commonly, knives for protection. There is some irony
in the fact that Detroit schools began using metal detectors
several years ago not because of gun-related violence at the
schools, but because girls were starting to carry knives with them
in response to a series of rapes, apparently not by a student, of
students walking to or from school. The city which could not
protect them was determined they should not protect themselves.
There should be some concern that draconian efforts to disarm
students without offering alternative means of protection might
backfire, by encouraging some students to join gangs as a means for
obtaining protection. (Kopel, 1993:31)
One obvious policy implication of all this is that, while the
carrying of guns and knives to school violates the law, draconian
or mandatory punishment, without consideration of the reasons for
carrying weapons, is misguided. Since some criminal violence is
associated with a history of child abuse at home, expelling some
students could combine denying them the education which might help
them grow up something other than a career criminal while sending
them to the locale where they are most apt to be victimized and to
learn victimizing behavior.
Individual examples of overreaction by authorities are
beginning to appear, such as a seven-year-old girl's being
suspended and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation for
carrying a little water pistol to a Boston school. (Grand Junction
[Colo.] Daily Sentinel, May 5, 1994) More serious is legislative
overkill, such as that reported by UPI in Michigan, where a bill
was signed into law reportedly calling for a six-month suspension
for any student, grade 6-12, convicted of carrying a gun or knife
to school, regardless of whether anything harmful was done with the
weapon -- with, reportedly, a similar half-year expulsion if
convicted of committing rape or arson on school grounds. Students
in lower grades would face expulsion for at least three months.
(UPI, October 12, 1994)
In an effort to establish uniform folly, Senators Dianne
Feinstein and Byron Dorgan amended federal education law so that
the President could issue an executive order requiring that states
adopt laws expelling any student -- with few exceptions -- for one
year for carrying a gun on school grounds or else lose federal
funding. President Clinton, reminiscent of drug laws -- but
without noting some problems with arbitrary enforcement of drug
laws, or that guns, unlike drugs, can be used for protection in an
unsafe environment -- called for "zero tolerance" of guns on school
grounds. (Washington Post, October 23, 1994, p. A8) With tight
budgets, even the relatively small percentage of primary and
secondary education funded by the federal government will probably
allow it to succeed in forcing state compliance with federal
standards, supplementing the federal criminal ban on possessing
guns on or near school property.
Gun-free school zone provisions are a problem for a number of
reasons, including the vagueness of what is prohibited and where --
with some "due process" issues regarding notice raised by the fact
that the "zone" is generally 1,000 feet from the school, whereas
signs are generally posted, for other reasons, saying "end school
zone" within a few feet of the school. And the wrong persons are
apt to be caught: sportsmen dropping a child off before going
hunting, for example, or, as occurred in Maryland, a teacher who
inadvertently left a pistol locked on the floor of her car.
(Kopel, 1993:33)
The federal legislation is especially egregious, since it not
only insinuates the federal government into what is clearly a state
or local crime-control matter, but may discourage state felony
prosecution for the more serious offenders carrying guns onto or
near school property. Faced with overcrowded prisons, states may
leave it to the federal government to prosecute a serious offender
for a misdemeanor, keeping someone worthy of serious punishment off
the streets for a shorter period of time than had the states been
left to prosecute.
Related to the goal of reducing arms carrying in schools is
the question of metal detectors. There are a number of problems
with the use of metal detectors. These include the high cost of a
product which is bound -- with three-ring binders and calculators
all likely to set off detection equipment -- to have many false
positives, the potential fire code problems involved in restricting
access and egress, and the fact that searches generally require
individualized suspicion to be constitutional [New Jersey v.
T.L.O., 105 S.Ct. 733 (1985)]. In addition, smuggling weapons into
schools would still not be especially difficult. Unlike metal
detectors in airports, there is nothing particularly voluntary
about entering a school, and there is no way to avoid privacy
violations by x-ray or metal detection equipment by checking bags
through. In addition, individualized suspicion should be rather
easier to establish for less massive searches in schools than at
airports; teachers should have some idea who the troublemakers are
and should not need to search everyone to find the troublemakers'
weapons.
Perhaps worst, for those concerned with long-term survival of
American civil liberties, children will be taught to accept
widespread metal detection equipment, and accept it as adults as
well, and in places other than limited arenas such as school
grounds. (Kopel, 1993:33-34)
The Focal Point of the Problem of Adolescent Gun-related Violence
It is possible to find examples of gun-related violence of all
kinds anywhere. Elementary-school children someplace will be found
with guns. There are occasional murders by teenagers in rural
areas and small towns. And, carefully choosing time frames, one
can even find the situation worsening a bit, for a variety of age
and ethnic groups living in a variety of locations.
But the real problem of gun-related violence -- the source of
anything which could be called an "epidemic" for anything other
than rhetorical grounds, or to explain attempting to use
epidemiological methods to address the problem -- is sharply
limited. It is a problem heavily concentrated among inner-city
blacks and Hispanics, particularly males, and especially those from
broken homes, who have suffered physical abuse and lived with drug
abuse, have troubled siblings and peers, poor learning skills, and
little hope for the future. While such CDC spokesmen as Mark
Rosenberg falsely insist that the homicide increase among teenage
males has "the same trends for whites and blacks" (New York Times,
October 14, 1994, p. A22), the CDC's explanation for the increase
first notes "the immediate and specific causes...may be the result
of the recruitment of juveniles into drug markets," and that the
precursors of the immediate causes "include poverty, inadequate
educational and economic opportunities, social and family
instability, and frequent exposure to violence as an acceptable or
preferred method of resolving disagreements." (CDC, 1994c:726-727)
Those underlying causes are not spread evenly across all levels or
urbanization or among the various ethnic groups in America.
Virtually everything associated with gun-related violence, or
the potentiality for gun-related violence, among young persons is
heavily concentrated in the black -- and, to the extent
differentiating data are available, Hispanic -- community,
particularly among males. This is true for arrests for violent
crimes, and victimization in handgun-related violent crimes. (FBI,
1992:279-289; Rand, 1994) It is true for injury-related hospital
care. (Hall and Owings, 1994) And it is true for carrying weapons
for protection, where CDC surveys indicate that males were more
than twice as likely to have carried a weapon for protection during
the previous month as were females, and blacks and Hispanics were
more likely to have carried than were whites. Moreover, while only
one-fifth of those who carried some weapon for protection
identified it as a firearm, the majority of black high-school-age
respondents so identified the weapon carried. (CDC, 1991)
It is even more glaringly true for homicide, with or without
a firearm. Among teenage males, one study found the gun-related
homicide rate among blacks was nearly ten times higher for inner
city teenage blacks than for rural blacks, and seven times higher
for core metropolitan blacks than for similarly located whites
(including Hispanics). And, despite the normally higher homicide
rate among males than females, that did not hold comparing black
females with white males for most levels of urbanization. The
differences for non-gun-related homicide were not as dramatic
between black and white males, but for homicides without guns,
black female teenagers recorded higher rates of homicide
victimization than white males regardless of level of urbanization.
(Fingerhut et al., 1992)
A study of drive-by shootings of children and adolescents in
Los Angeles (Hutson et al., 1994) reported that 71% of the
shootings involved gangs. More significantly, in locating the
focus point of the problem of adolescent misuse of firearms, 97% of
those shot at or injured, and all of the homicide victims, were
African American or Hispanic, in a city which is less than 54%
black or Hispanic (Hispanics may be of any race).
It is in homicide data that the differences between whites and
blacks are most glaring. Black victimization and black arrest
rates for crimes other than homicide are generally higher than
those for whites, particularly among young persons, but the
differences are nowhere near so great. And the chronological
trends for young persons' involvements in crime and criminal
violence, as perpetrators or victims, are nothing anyone could call
"epidemic" except in the area of homicide. (Whitaker and Bastian,
1991; BJS, 1994; Allen-Hagen and Sickmund, 1993; Cornell, 1993)
The type of homicide increase is the sort traditionally found
associated with marketing in proscribed items, such as alcohol and
drugs, in two ways. First, the increase in teen homicide is
greater for firearm-related homicide than for others, with black
teenage male homicide involving firearms 90% of the time, compared
with 68% overall -- and involvement as low as 58% in 1983.
(Fingerhut, 1993; FBI, 1984 and 1993) And the increase is more
associated with felony-related killings than interpersonal
conflict. (Cornell, 1993) Such increases would be in conformance
with the key factor the introduction of crack cocaine into the
urban ghetto in the middle and late 1980s.
Other risk factors have been more slowly developing, but could
steadily increase to problems among the lower socio-economic strata
of society. The percentage of black children born out of wedlock
has been steadily increasing, and has reached about two-thirds of
all births to African American mothers -- even more for younger
mothers. The rise has been dramatic over the decades, from less
than 20% in 1950 to 38% in 1970 and 67% by 1990. To be sure, there
has been a sharp increase among white women, too, but the increase
has been from less than 2% of births being to unmarried women up to
17%. And the illegitimate birth rate is nearly three times as high
for unmarried black women as for unmarried white women. (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1982:66 and 1993:77-78) A recent study of
Fulton County (Ga.) homicides noted that the mothers of 61% of the
victims were 20 years of age or under when the victim was born,
with only a minority married at the time of birth. (CDC, 1994d)
And the income gap has been widening between black and white
families, but only because the gap has widened for other than black
married couples. But the percentage of black children living with
two parents has dropped from 59% in 1970 to 36% in 1993.
(Washington Post, September 15, p. A14) These are simply
manifestations of social problems which are highlighted by epidemic
increases in the homicide rate among black teenagers, particularly
males living in the inner cities. Although there have also been
increases in white illegitimacy, the scope of the problem is much
less than in the black community. Reasonable efforts to curb the
increased problem of teenage gun-related violence should be geared
toward an understanding of where that violence is concentrated and
what problems have contributed to its growth. Firearms
availability to ordinary persons, regardless of race, is simply not
one of the factors involved.
A Proposed Phony Solution: Gun Redesign
A number of proposals are primarily aimed at interfering with
gun ownership by ordinary Americans, using concern over children as
a gimmick. After having noted that there is no dispute about
children's unsupervised access to guns (Rosenberg et al.,
1992:3072), the CDC's Rosenberg has more recently suggested that
through education on the evils of guns, they hope to make the
perception of guns like cigarettes, "dirty, deadly -- and banned."
(Raspberry, 1994)
There is no particular reason to take seriously as measures
aimed at preventing gun-related violence among children those which
are aimed at adults, with children merely rhetorical tools. When,
for example, Jack Anderson called the Brady bill "the best
[juvenile] trauma care legislation ever invented" (Washington Post,
September 7, 1992), he was clearly simply using rhetoric to support
general gun restrictions. The Brady Act, after all, affects the
sales by federally-licensed gun dealers of handguns to persons aged
21 and above. It has nothing to do with children.
For the most part, proposals are primarily aimed at curtailing
accidents with firearms, or at the assumption that making firearms
harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire will at least make it
somewhat more difficult for criminals to obtain the guns, thus
reducing criminal misuse of the guns: "banning the sale and
possession of handguns has the potential to reduce firearm deaths
and injuries among children and adolescents." (Dolins and
Christoffel, 1994:647) Constitutionally, the rights of adults
cannot be limited to that which is suitable for children. And, as
a practical matter, gun owners' probable responses to certain
solutions must be kept in mind. One proposal which at least
clearly addresses the issue of children and guns, rather than gun
control in general, is the call for the redesign of firearms.
There are a number of redesigns suggested, including loaded
indicators, passive safety devices, personalized guns, less lethal
firearms and ammunition, and the like. None are really geared
toward intentional misuse of firearms, but more toward accidental
misuse, particularly by the very young, who constitute a decreasing
number and a small portion of accidental firearms victims.
One major study was performed by the General Accounting Office
(GAO, 1991), at the request and with the guidance of Senator Howard
Metzenbaum, to evaluate whether two proposed modifications of
firearms would help to save children's lives. The premise was
that, while 84% of the deaths involved violations of NRA safety
guidelines, 31% involved shootings where either a loaded indicator
or a passive safety device would have prevented the shooting.
There are a number of problems with the GAO report. First,
their sample was unrepresentatively young. Nationally, less than
3.5% of accidents involve persons under the age of five; the GAO
sample had 8% in that age group. Nationally, about 40% of
firearms-related accidents involve victims at least 31 years of
age; in the GAO sample, only 16% were over the age of 30.
Nationally, less than one-third of accidents kill persons under
voting age; over half of the GAO sample was too young to vote.
In the one area where there is clear knowledge about gun-related
accidents, the GAO sample was unrepresentative. Under the
circumstances, there can be little confidence regarding estimates
from such a sample.
There were additional problems with their recommendations,
although they have been popular with the CDC and its grantees. The
recommendation that guns all have loaded indicators -- some device
for determining whether the firearm is loaded -- is worthless
without some education about what the indicator is and what it
means. Thus, the denounced education remains essential. The GAO
also noted that the loaded indicator, to be effective, would have
to be put onto all firearms, noting that the false assumption that
the device was on the gun could mislead and increase carelessness.
For a number of reasons, gun owners would not cooperate by having
their firearms retrofitted with such devices. And, unlike consumer
products with rather short life spans, where safety improvements
can be imposed on manufacturers prospectively with some hope of
rapidly covering most of the items owned by consumers, firearms
last for decades.
Another problem with the idea is that the education associated
with loaded indicators would run counter to proper safety
instruction. Under NRA guidelines, a firearm is presumed loaded
until proven otherwise. The GAO approach would teach that, if a
loaded indicator indicated that a firearm were empty, one could
treat it as if it were unloaded. Such education would fly in the
face of rational education. To gun owners, firearms have a variety
of loaded indicators: open cylinder, open bolt, etc.
The other proposal was estimated to cover a smaller portion --
8% compared to 23% for loaded indicators -- by requiring passive
safety devices, devices which automatically render firearms
inoperable until disengaged, as opposed to safeties which have to
be deliberately engaged. The most common example is the grip
safety, where the hand gripping the gun releases the safety. The
GAO's assumption was that passive safeties would save the lives of
children too young to strongly grasp the gun, although too high a
percentage of their sample involved persons that young.
Again, the GAO acknowledged that the device should be
universal to be effective, and might be counterproductive if absent
on large numbers of firearms, since that would encourage false
confidence of safety. In general, firearms owners do not wish
passive safety devices. In public addresses, anti-gun advocate
Stephen Teret often uses as an example of a passive safety on a
revolver model of Smith & Wesson. The marketing history of that
revolver tells something of the likely success of such a device.
In response to the fact that gun owners were undoing the safety,
Smith & Wesson modified the gun so that inserting a pin would allow
the safety to be permanently disengaged. Then, further responding
to market pressures, the grip or backstrap safety disappeared
altogether. Although Teret asserts the revolver was never involved
in an accident, some firearms experts have asserted that the way
children play dangerously with revolvers (with thumbs inside the
trigger guard and the rest of their hands at the back of the gun
with the muzzle pointing toward the child), they do have strength
to disengage the safety. Disagreeing with Teret and the GAO, the
anti-gun Children's Defense Fund insists that toddlers have the
strength to pull the trigger. (Skorneck, 1994)
In any event, gun owners generally decide which safety devices
they want or do not want, and if a firearm comes with unwanted
safeties, they are permanently disengaged, either with amateur or
professional gunsmithing, or jerry-rigging. The most common
passive safety, the grip safety, can be easily permanently
disengaged even by the mechanically incompetent by using a variety
of household tapes. Gun owners would be unlikely to allow guns to
be retrofitted with unwanted safeties. Most owners of classic
automobiles have not had them retrofitted with seatbelts, and, of
course, the permanent buzzer warning of unengaged seatbelts was
changed because so many drivers were disengaging the device.
Similarly, while childproof medicine bottles enhance safety, many
adults overcome the device for ease of use. And the risk is that
parents taught that guns have passive safeties could endanger
children by not being cognizant that most guns do not, and will
not, have such safeties. As a practical matter, most regulations
of consumer products affect the manufacture and sale; the consumer
is generally free to alter products for personal use at will.
(Breslin, 1992)
Even the leader of the AAP effort to restrict handguns
recognizes that "the net result of marketing a `safer gun' could be
to increase household arsenals and decrease vigilance about firearm
safety, because people might have the impression that they now own
`safe' guns." (Christoffel, 1991:301) In addition, the
improvement sought is minimal. The most significant misuse of
firearms -- by children or adults -- involve intentional misuse in
suicide or homicide. As the AAP has noted, "Modifications in gun
design are unlikely to reduce injury, since those at greatest risk
are preteen and teenage boys, both of whom possess adult abilities
to circumvent gun safety features." (AAP Committee on Adolescence,
1992)
A further refinement of the proposal to add safeties to
prevent some persons from using firearms is the idea of
personalized firearms, so that only a single person could disengage
an automatic safety device. This would not only prevent accidents,
but criminal shootings with stolen firearms. It would not prevent
some crimes with guns, since victims rarely challenge criminals to
prove a gun operable, and the hoodlum might not even know they gun
he carried could not be fired. Its utility, as with other redesign
ideas, would require that virtually all guns be personalized; if
some were and some were not, the fact that many were known to be
personalized could encourage resistance to criminals quite capable
of pulling the trigger to expel a projectile.
Some persons already have personalized guns, where a
magnetized code in a ring is required for the gun to fire. The
obvious disadvantage for protective uses of handguns is that the
gun's utility is sharply diminished for anyone lacking the ring.
If a husband wanted his wife to be able to use the gun, a duplicate
ring would be needed for her. If the children were to be able to
use the gun in an emergency, the ring would have to be available to
them, minimizing the effectiveness of the device to prevent
accidents. That temptation would encourage storing the decoder
ring near the firearm when not in actual use, maximizing the
likelihood that thieves would steal both. This may be why the
CDC's Rosenberg has suggested that the owner's hand be implanted
with a chip. (Wilkinson, 1993:17)
As with other ideas unpopular with gun owners, most safety
goals would be minimized if the practice were not universal, and,
indeed, lack of universality could encourage more sloppy behavior
by parents, and more risky behavior by children and potential
victims. Even if all new guns manufactured had to be personalized,
gunsmiths would be employed to disengage the system.
Another redesign proposal is to develop less lethal firearms,
and/or ammunition, for protective use. One risk with less lethal
means for protection is the political one: when an item is
produced which could be misused, someone is apt to seek to ban it
on the grounds that it has been or will be misused. And newer
technology is harder to defend politically. That which is owned by
virtually no one has few persons personally threatened by
restrictive legislation. Constitutional arguments regarding the
right to own commonly owned "arms" do not apply to those which are
not commonly owned. And if it is not an actual firearm, protective
public interest groups are apt to be weaker than when the target is
a real firearm.
Hence, "ballistic knives" were banned after U.S.
Representative Mario Biaggi was shown an advertisement for one.
"Stun guns" and taser guns have been sharply restricted on the
grounds they could be used to commit robberies and assaults, even
though most of the actual misuse reported in the news media have
been misuses by law enforcement officials who are exempt from state
and local restrictions -- although there has also been some
suggestion that they are used in child abuse. (Frechette and
Rimsza, 1992) The "exploding bullets" used by John Hinckley in his
assassination attempt (which were promptly removed from the
civilian market), were developed to increase stopping power while
reducing penetration and thus likely lethality. And the ammunition
used in so-called "assault weapon" rifles is generally less
powerful than ordinary big-game hunting ammunition, and, indeed,
was designed for military purposes to wound more than to kill
(Fackler et al., 1990) -- a dead soldier reduces enemy forces by
one; a wounded soldier adds to the reduction of enemy forces those
needed to retrieve and care for the wounded soldier. In 1992, the
Maryland legislature considered, and the Florida legislature
enacted, legislation banning incendiary shotgun ammunition, which
amounted to a rather expensive firework, but with a much shorter
range of risk than ordinary shot or slugs. The imaginative
argument was that it would be used against law enforcement officers
and burn their clothes while penetrating their bodies. It was not
reported that it had ever been used in a crime. And, of course,
handguns are generally less lethal than long guns, yet are the
primary target for the CDC, AAP, and HCI. And, among handguns, the
lower caliber and shorter-barreled -- and hence less lethal -- so-
called "Saturday Night Special" has long been singled out.
(Wintemute, 1994:65)
Less lethal weaponry may remain lethal. (Crime Victims
Digest, 1992a) A television star was, after all, killed with the
paper wadding in a "blank" cartridge accidentally fired at his
head. With liability suits common for any product which
misperforms (such suits have occasionally also been brought against
products for doing exactly what they were designed to do), such
lethality could result in lawsuits threatening the business life of
any such manufacturer of less lethal weaponry.
Nonetheless, less lethal ammunition is apt to be produced.
(Crime Victims Digest, 1992b) Its effectiveness and popularity --
and availability to others than the law enforcement community -- is
open to question. If available, its popularity with gun owners
interested in the protective benefits of firearms has yet to be
determined. Such ammunition would not, of course, have any impact
on criminal misuse of firearms -- it is the firearm itself, not the
ammunition, which enhances cooperation with robbers and assailants.
Nor, in all likelihood, would criminal homicide be reduced.
Criminals would prefer the traditional ammunition which would still
have to be available for sporting purposes, and new ammunition
would not affect the will to kill which is all too apparent in
shootings by young criminals. (Webster et al., 1992) And less
lethal ammunition might well be fatal to small children. There
would be the concern, at least, that calling ammunition less lethal
or non-lethal could encourage more careless storage of a loaded
firearm than might occur if parents and guardians knew that
ammunition were lethal.
The development of less lethal weaponry will continue because,
although ideal non-lethal devices do not exist, police will
continue to experiment with them to reduce their liability.
(Meyer, 1992) And, to the extent such less lethal protective arms
are available, some gun owners will likely opt to use them -- and
some anti-gunners will object on the grounds some persons are
buying these guns or gun-like objects who otherwise would not
purchase any gun for protection.
NRA's Response to the Problem of Gun-Related Youth Violence
Like all concerned citizens, members of the National Rifle
Association are interested in reducing the levels of child and
adolescent violence, particularly that involving firearms. NRA
members are opposed to the misuse of items they respect deeply, and
they do not like their reputation as gun owners sullied by the
misuse by persons unlawfully in possession of guns. In addition,
obviously, one response to increasing misuse of guns, or to the
perceived increasing misuse of guns, is more pressure for
restrictions on the law abiding, and NRA members prefer to spend
their time and effort using firearms, not lobbying.
NRA lobbying on issues related primarily to adolescent misuse
of firearms are limited for a number of reasons, and NRA success in
reducing the amount of violence is similarly apt to be limited.
First, some of the NRA's efforts are geared toward further reducing
the accidental misuse of guns, a small portion of the problem of
gun-related violence by children and teenagers. Success in that
area will not noticeably affect assaultive or suicidal misuse of
guns.
Second, the NRA is composed primarily of non-big-city middle-
class white males, whose children are not having problems with the
misuse of firearms. NRA members will contribute to the NRA, and
will personally contact politicians, more effectively when they are
personally threatened by something happening in society, or by
legislative efforts to address a problem. They cannot be counted
on any more than any other non-big-city middle-class whites to
actively lobby to rebuild the inner cities. And, having collected
funds for lobbying and electioneering on issues directly affecting
the right to keep and bear arms, it would be improper, if not
unlawful, for the lobbying arm of the NRA to expend massive efforts
lobbying on other matters. Further, even if the NRA attempted
fully to address the problems of the inner city, it would no more
be welcomed unhesitatingly and unsuspiciously than would any other
proposed interference by people who do not look as if they belong
in the inner city; NRA activities, however well intended, would be
perceived as meddling.
Finally, as Kleck has noted: "Fixating on guns seems to be,
for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more
intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying
cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all-
pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery
and racism....All parties to the crime debate would do well to give
more concentrated attention to more difficult, but far more
relevant, issues like how to generate more good-paying jobs for the
underclass, an issue which is at the heart of the violence
problem." (Kopel, 1993:49) The NRA has not figured out a long-term
plan for restoring family stability or values, or rebuilding the
economic and social structure of the inner city. Most NRA
proposals, thus, must address various tangential issues, and
shorter term solutions such as restricting the ability of persons
committed to violence from being free to assault those trying to
live peaceful lives.
Gun Safety Training
There have, nonetheless, been a number of initiatives or
responses from the NRA in regard to the problem of teen gun-related
violence. NRA's Eddie Eagle program is intended in a neutral way
-- neither encouraging nor discouraging adult ownership of firearms
-- to warn children about the misuse of firearms, and thus to
further reduce children's gun accidents. The program is relatively
new, and, while it has been praised by the National Safety Council,
it has not be scientifically evaluated as of yet.
Violence in the Entertainment Industry
Noting the adverse effects of violent television on violent
behavior (Centerwall, 1989), the NRA has testified against media
violence. (Lamson, 1993) Because of the guarantees of the First
Amendment, most of the NRA's call is for responsibility by the
entertainment industry. As a practical matter, while television
violence may be subject to some regulations as a federally-licensed
industry, the increasing amount of less regulatable cable
television, the generally-protected motion-picture industry, and
the potentially most violence-inducing medium, "rap" music, are
subject to self-regulation -- spurred perhaps by public outrage,
such as that engendered by the NRA and other groups against Time-
Warner's "Cop Killer" song -- or none at all.
As a practical matter, it has been noted that violence in the
media probably has but limited negative impact for persons subject
to strong family values (Kopel, 1993:53, 83). It might further be
noted that the suggestion that television violence unrealistically
fails to note the permanence of harm -- "Wile E. Coyote" may be
blown up but not harmed -- the inner-city youths whose increasing
violence is the problem are all-too-aware of the pain caused by
inflicting injuries. But they do not care. (Simon, 1992)
There is at least some irony in the fact that some of the
persons who make violence-inspiring movies pretend to be anti-
violence and are outspokenly anti-gun. It seems not to occur to
them that the violence portrayed in movies directed by, among
others, John Singleton, inspire more imitation than repugnance. It
has been reported that the greatest gun-related mass murder in U.S.
history -- the October 1991 killings in Luby's Cafeteria in
Killeen, Texas -- was by a man found with the ticket to The Fisher
King, starring anti-gun, anti-NRA actor Robin Williams, in his
pocket. A feature of the film is a mass murder in a restaurant.
(Kopel, 1993:55)
One beneficial legislative policy which might easily be
adopted to discourage some media violence, without interfering with
First Amendment rights, would be fairly simple: Apply all
restrictive gun laws to the entertainment industry. If ordinary
citizens may not possess new machineguns, do not make exceptions
for the motion-picture industry. If ordinary citizens may not
acquire new large-capacity magazines, apply that law to the
entertainment industry. Either in law, in such places as
California, or as a matter of practice, the entertainment industry
is currently exempt from restrictive gun laws. There is no
reason for such an exemption -- particularly when the industry has
actively lobbied for imposing such restrictions on others. As with
most efforts to curb violence, this one might be relatively
limited; most of the more seriously violence-encouraging motion
pictures appear to involve ordinary firearms rather than those
sharply restricted by state or federal laws.
An additional legislative approach might be to mandate
television manufacturers to put circuitry in new televisions which
would allow parents to lock out certain stations and/or certain
times of operation. (Kopel, 1993:55) As with efforts to encourage
diversity in television by ordering new sets to be made to receive
UHF programming, such an imposition would make the procedure
affordable enough so society did not have to count on parents
willing and financially able to purchase such features as options.
Treat Violent Juvenile Criminals -- and Their Records -- as Adults
The juvenile justice system is geared toward the idea that
children and adolescents should not be treated the same way as
adults, that they are in need more of reform than punishment, and
that if they go straight as adults, their youthful indiscretions
should be forgotten. The result is that they are treated with
greater leniency, and their juvenile records are sealed.
The idea is fine so long as they get reformed, and are law-
abiding after initial leniency and efforts at reform. Otherwise,
there is no reason for society to sacrifice itself -- and those
residents of the inner-city who are attempting to overcome their
deprivations and lead law-abiding and productive lives -- to
juveniles whose delinquency is unrepentant. The most serious of
teenage crimes should be treated as adult offenses. This would
include those felonies involving the use of deadly or dangerous
weapons, the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical
injury, sexual assault, violent or sexual offenses committed
against children, and repeat serious felony offenses, or serious
offenses committed while on release from another offense. And
juvenile records should be available for consideration of proper
punishment for recidivist offenses as either juveniles or adults.
In addition, promoting efforts to engage criminals to
recognize the humanity of their victims, efforts to impose
mandatory restitution to their victims or the victims' families
should be implemented.
Related to criminal activities by minors, the NRA supports
legislation imposing severe mandatory felony penalties on adults
who involve juveniles in criminal activities, particularly if the
use of children is to avoid the penalties which would be imposed on
adults. The incentive to avoid committing the act themselves, and
to encourage serious criminal behavior by persons who might
otherwise not behave so badly, should be removed.
Early Intervention for "At Risk" Youth and Discipline and
Responsibility Training for Non- Violent First Time Offenders
Since those committing status offenses are more apt to engage
in more serious offenses later, unless there is some intervention,
special attention should be given to those children and
adolescents, as well as to first-time non-violent juvenile
offenders. Arbitration and restitution programs are one
possibility. Mandatory community or public service, and "boot
camp" experiences may also prove beneficial, and are worthy of at
least experimental adoption. They must learn that there are
meaningful consequences for choosing to engage in behavior harmful
to others, but should not be treated as violent criminals.
Teaching entire classes confrontation avoidance and non-escalation
of arguments is certainly worth pursuing.
In addition, alternative schooling may be needed for students
who would still benefit from education, but pose severe risks for
other students in the standard educational environment. Merely
expelling students may be essential in some instances, but
society's goal should be to find a means to educate so long as
there is the possibility the education will benefit the student
and, thus, society.
Curb Possession of Firearms by Children with Some Adult
Responsibility
The NRA has worked with various state legislatures to provide
legislative curbs on much unsupervised possession or use of
firearms by minors. In Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, Kentucky,
Indiana, and Missouri, the NRA has supported legislation
prohibiting possession of handguns by minors except in the
following circumstances: attendance at a hunter or firearms safety
course; engaging in target shooting where firearms discharge is not
prohibited; engaging in organized competition; hunting or trapping
pursuant to a valid license (if needed); while on real property
under the control of a family member or guardian, with adult
permission; and in the minor's residence, possessing a handgun with
permission for the purpose of exercising the right of self-defense
or defense of another. Use for legitimate protection should always
provide a defense from possession charges -- a serious limitation
in the new federal ban on juvenile handgun possession.
In addition, the NRA has supported legislation which would
hold adults responsible if someone was injured or killed because
the adult showed reckless disregard for the safety of others in
storing his firearms. The NRA opposes legislation specifying the
way a firearm should be stored, or punishing for careless storage
regardless of whether anything harmful is done with the firearm,
since that would invite capricious prosecutions by regulating
activity done in the privacy of one's home. In addition, there is
no single proper method of storing firearms, with preferences
associated with the use to which the firearm is to be put, the ages
and senses of responsibility of persons residing in the home, and
the affluence of the gun owner. Essentially, the NRA supports
legislation specific to firearms codifying ordinary prohibitions on
reckless endangerment. The reasonableness of the storage would
have to be determined on a case by case basis, although Kleck has
noted that storing a gun locked, whether loaded or not, is adequate
for prevention of children's accidents. (1991:279)
Any such legislation would have to exempt adults from
responsibility for harm done with guns acquired through unlawful
activity; they are not responsible for burglaries, and should not
be victimized by society after being victimized by a burglar. Any
such risk would discourage reporting thefts to law enforcement,
potentially increasing the risk of police officers attempting to
apprehend a burglar.
And such legislation is better if geared toward firearms in
general, not expressly limited to handguns. Research indicates
that, relative to being kept loaded, long guns may be more subject
to accidental misuse (Kleck, 1991:280-281), so legislation should
not be geared toward increasing loaded storage of long guns as a
substitute of similar storage of handguns.
NRA Urban Affairs Activities
Building on the experience of the Royal Bushman Association in
Houston, the NRA worked with various other groups in Atlanta on a
Community OutdoorFest in Atlanta, working through the 100 Black Men
of Atlanta, the Georgia Black Hunters of America, the Police
Athletic League, the Boy Scouts, and others, to provide an outdoor
setting for inner-city youths. The goal was to introduce urban
youth to the safe, educational, and recreational benefits of
outdoor activities, and to empower participants to work together to
achieve such mutual goals as linking community-based organizations
to provide positive programs for urban youth, to increase urban
youths' awareness of gun safety, to introduce young persons to
positive mentoring relationship, and to promote healthy adolescent
development.
Based upon the success of the program in Atlanta, efforts are
underway to provide similar programs in Wichita, Baltimore, and, in
cooperation with the Congress of Racial Equality, New York City.
In addition, the NRA is working with judges in counties in Arizona
and Virginia to develop programs to teach juveniles who have
violated firearms laws, along with their parents, about firearms
safety and responsible use. Efforts are also underway to introduce
the "Eddie Eagle" firearms safety programs to urban children, and
work is underway to translate the lower level of that gun safety
program into Spanish.
These programs are in their infancy, but with further plans
for the growth of outreach programs to expose at-risk urban
youngsters to fishing, archery, air guns, wildlife management, and
other activities, as a way to develop basic life skills and to
reinforce the values of self-respect, responsibility, and self-
discipline, including classes in conflict resolution and career
progression. The goal of the relatively new NRA Committee on Urban
Affairs, geared toward reaching out toward those currently
underutilizing NRA services, is to develop an Urban Affairs Program
in the NRA's Safety and Education Division.
Conclusion: Addressing the Underlying Social Problems
Most of the NRA approaches are geared toward some of the
current problems of juvenile criminal activity with firearms, and
at further reducing the small number of accidental misuses of
firearms. To the extent some firearms education and socialization
into the shooting sports builds responsibility, there may be longer
term benefits. But in the long run, there are too many social
problems underlying the problems of the inner-cities for a
sportsmen's club to be more than a bit player.
As has been noted by many others (Kopel, 1993:64-66), there
are too many children born to children, with inadequate pre-natal
care. There are too many born into families with histories of
physical and sexual abuse, which is likely to recur. There are too
many born and raised without an appropriate father figure, if any
at all. There are too many raised with inadequate moral training,
with enough politicians and clergymen blaming society for bad deeds
by young persons that the individual may feel free to act anyway he
chooses without remorse. And there are too many children raised
with inadequate educational opportunities or hope for the future,
with enough rhetoric making them think they will not live to
adulthood that they do not care to think of the future.
America must address those problems if it hopes to alleviate
the problem of firearms misuse by young persons. Those problems
cannot be addressed by pretending that the problem is more
widespread than it is, nor by pretending that restrictive gun laws
or demonizing firearms will solve the problem. As Kopel noted
(1993:67), in the mid-1960s anti-gun politicians promised that the
problem of juvenile delinquents would be "substantially alleviated"
if the gun restrictions they were pushing were adopted. They were
by 1968, and the only result was that juvenile violence increased
so rapidly during the 1970s that the additional growth in juvenile
violence in the 1980s looks slow by comparison. (Stepp, 1994:12)
Further restrictive gun laws are unlikely to work any better
now than then. As a recent survey of inner-city high-school
students has noted:
Our findings point away from intervention at the
individual level and toward changes in the larger
familial, communal, and social situation of those most
involved in gun-related violence....
Structurally, we are experiencing the development of
an inner-city underclass unlike any in our past. In a
shrinking industrial economy, we are witnessing the
disintegration of the traditional family, increasing
poverty and homelessness, diminishing health, and
deteriorating educational institutions. The desperation
of this situation is enhanced by the apparent enormity of
the drug problem and the ready availability of firearms
to all. Given all this, perhaps the surprising result is
not that there is so much violence in the inner city, but
that there is so little.
These structural ingredients have fostered a culture
of violence that, unfortunately, may survive even after
the structural situation has improved. Inner-city youths
know they are at risk for violent victimization, and they
are now accustomed to arming themselves for protection
(from violence in general or from violence associated
with illegal activities)....Guns have become a part of
the culture of the inner city, underclass youths. As a
cultural element, the desire to carry firearms will last
long beyond the need to carry firearms (even assuming,
perhaps unrealistically, that the need itself would be
reduced by structural improvements). (Sheley et al.,
1992:681-82)
To too many politicians, the false promise of gun control is
easier than the tougher problem of addressing seemingly
insurmountable problems of inner-city minority populations, where
realistic approaches, whether short term or long term, are costly.
Unfortunately, those are the only approaches with any hope of
success.
REFERENCES
AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] Committee on Adolescence
1992 Policy Statement: Firearms and Adolescents. AAP
News 20-21 (January).
Allen-Hagen, Barbara, and Melissa Sickmund
1993 Juveniles and Violence: Juvenile Offending and
Victimization. OJJDP Fact Sheet #3, July.
BJS [Bureau of Justice Statistics]
1994 Violent Crime: Selected Findings. U.S. Department
of Justice, April.
Blackman, Paul H.
1992 Correspondence: Firearm Access and Suicide. JAMA
267:3026.
Brent, David A.
1987 Correlates of the Medical Lethality of Suicide
Attempts in Children and Adolescents. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry 26:87-89.
Brent, David A., et al.
1991 The Presence and Accessibility of Firearms in the
Homes of Adolescent Suicides: A Case-
Controlled Study. JAMA 266:2989- 2995.
1993 Adolescent Psychiatric Inpatients' Risk of Suicide
Attempt at 6-Month Follow-up. Journal of the
American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry
32:95-105.
Breslin, Patricia
1992 Toward the Solution: Regulations Can Facilitate
Positive Change. Talk delivered at the annual
meeting of the American Trauma Society,
McLean, Virginia, May 8.
CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]
1991 Weapon-Carrying Among High School Students -- United
States, 1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report [MMWR] 40:681- 684 (October 11).
1992 Behaviors Related to Unintentional and Intentional
Injuries Among High School Students -- United
States, 1991. MMWR 41:760-772.
1994a Firearm-Related Years of Potential Life Lost
Before Age 65 Years -- United States, 1980-1991.
MMWR 43(33):609-611 (August 26).
1994b Annual Summary of Births, Marriages, Divorces,
and Deaths: United States, 1993. NCHS Monthly
Vital Statistics Report 42(13)(October 11).
1994c Homicides Among 15-19-Year-Old Males -- United
States, 1963-1991. MMWR 43:725-727 (October 14).
1994d Adolescent Homicide -- Fulton County, Georgia,
1988-1992. MMWR 43:728-730 (October 14).
Centerwall, Brandon S.
1989 Exposure to Television as a Risk Factor for
Violence. American Journal of Epidemiology 129:643-
652.
1991 Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns: Canada and
the United States, 1976 to 1980. American Journal of
Epidemiology 134:1245-1260.
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence [Handgun Control, Inc.]
1990 Caught in the Crossfire: A Report on Gun Violence
in Our Nation's Schools. Washington, D.C.
Christoffel, Katherine K.
1991 Toward Reducing Pediatric Injuries from Firearms:
Charting a Legislative and Regulatory Course.
Pediatrics 88:294-305.
CJ Europe
1991 Suicide: Teenage Deaths Increasing Across Europe.
CJ Europe 1(2):4 (November-December).
Cooley, Thomas
1898 The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the
United States of America, 3rd Edition (ed. by
Andrew C. McLaughlin). Boston: Little, Brown, and
Co.
Cornell, Dewey G.
1993 Juvenile Homicide: A Growing National Problem.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law 11:389-396.
Cottrol, Robert J., editor
1994 Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and
Explorations on the Second Amendment. New York:
Garland Publishing, Inc.
Cramer, Clayton E.
1994 For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The
Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Westport, Conn.:
Praeger.
Crime Victims Digest
1992a Woman Killed by "Non-Lethal" Rubber Bullet
Fired by Officer. Crime Victims Digest 9(9):6-7
(September).
1992b Non Lethal and the Stopping Power of a 38
Special! Crime Victims Digest 9(9):7-8
(September).
DeClaire, Joan
1992 Kids & Guns. In View 34(6):30-35 (Sept./Oct.).
Dolins, Judith Cohen, and Katherine Kaufer Christoffel
1994 Reducing Violent Injuries: Priorities for
Pediatrician Advocacy. Pediatrics 94:638-651.
Dvorchak, Robert
1994 Crime control joins learning as a priority of
schools. Montgomery [Md.] Journal, September 12, p.
A10.
Fackler, Martin L., John A. Malinowski, Stephen W. Hoxie, and
Alexander Jason
1990 Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick
Purdy in the Stockton, California, Schoolyard
Shooting of January 17, 1989. American Journal
of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 11:185-189.
FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation]
1984 Crime in the United States, 1983. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
1986 Crime in the United States, 1985. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
1992 Crime in the United States, 1991. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
1993 Crime in the United States, 1992. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Fingerhut, Lois A., and Joel C. Kleinman
1989 Firearm Mortality Among Children and Youth. NCHS
Advance Data No. 178 (November 3). CDC National
Center for Health Statistics.
Fingerhut, Lois A., Joel C. Kleinman, Elizabeth Godfrey, and Harry
Rosenberg
1991 Firearm Mortality Among Children, Youth, and Young
Adults 1-34 Years of Age, Trends and Current
Status: United States 1979-1988. Monthly
Vital Statistics Report 39(11 Supplement)(March 14).
CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
Fingerhut, Lois A., Deborah D. Ingram, and Jacob J. Feldman
1992 Firearm and Nonfirearm Homicide Among Persons 15
Through 19 Years of Age: Differences by Level
of Urbanization, United States, 1979 through
1989. JAMA 267:3048-3053.
Fingerhut, Lois A.
1993 Firearm Mortality Among Children, Youth, and Young
Adults 1-34 Years of Age, Trends and Current
Status: United States, 1985-1990. CDC Advance
Date No. 231 (March 23).
Fingerhut, Lois A., Cheryl Jones, and Diane M. Makuc
1994 Firearm and Motor Vehicle Injury Mortality--
Variations by States, Race, and Ethnicity:
United States, 1990-91. NCHS Advance Data No. 242
(January 27). CDC National Center for Health Statistics.
Frechette, Alan, and Mary Ellen Rimsza
1992 Stun Gun Injury: A New Presentation of the Battered
Child Syndrome. Pediatrics 89:898-901.
GAO [General Accounting Office]
1991 Accidental Shootings: Many Deaths and Injuries
Caused by Firearms Could Be Prevented.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Antitrust, Monopolies, and Business Rights,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.
Hall, Margaret Jean, and Maria F. Owings
1994 Hospitalizations for Injury and Poisoning in the
United States, 1991. NCHS Advance Data No. 252
(October 7).
Hammett, Marcella, Kenneth E. Powell, Patrick W. O'Carroll, and
Sharon T. Clanton
1992 Homicide Surveillance -- United States, 1979-1988.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 41(SS-3):1-
33.
Hawton, Keith
1992 By their own hand: Suicide is increasing rapidly in
young men. British Medical Journal 304:1000
(April 18).
Henkoff, Ronald
1992 Children in Crisis: Kids are Killing, Dying,
Bleeding. Fortune (August 10): 62-29.
Howe, Walter J.
1992 Firearm Production, Imports, and Exports. Shooting
Industry 91-118 (January).
Hunter Education Association
1991 Hunting Accident Report with Graphics of 1986-1990
Data.
Hutson, H. Range, Deirdre Anglin, and Michael J. Pratts
1994 Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed in Drive-
By Shootings in Los Angeles. New England
Journal of Medicine 330:324-327.
Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence
1994 Report to the President and the Domestic Policy
Council (January).
Jackson, Cheryl
1992 Gun-safety backers shun NRA material. Cleveland
Plain Dealer, March 27.
Kellermann, Arthur L., Roberta K. Lee, James A. Mercy, and Joyce
Banton
1991 The Epidemiologic Basis for the Prevention of
Firearm Injuries. Annual Review of Public Health
12:17-40.
Kellermann, Arthur L., et al.
1992 Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.
New England Journal of Medicine 327:467-472.
Kleck, Gary
1991 Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
1992 Assault Weapons Aren't the Problem. New York Times,
September 1.
Kopel, David B.
1993 Children and Guns: Sensible Solutions. Golden,
Colo.: Independence Institute.
Lamson, Susan
1993 T.V. Violence and Children. Testimony from Director
of Federal Affairs, NRA Institute For Legislative
Action, before the Telecommunications and Violence
Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S.
House of Representatives, May 21.
League of Women Voters of Texas Education Fund
1994 Juvenile Violence and the Juvenile Justice System in
Texas.
Lizotte, Alan J., and James M. Tesoriero
1991 Patterns of Adolescent Firearms Ownership and Use.
Albany, N.Y.: Hindelang Criminal Justice
Research Center, State University of New York,
Rochester Youth Development Study Working Paper
#11.
Luntz Weber Research & Strategic Services
1993 NRA Member and Gun Owner National Benchmarks.
Washington, D.C.: Unpublished survey presented to NRA
Membership Task Force, September 30.
Mercy, James A., and Vernon N. Houk
1988 Firearm Injuries: A Call for Science. New England
Journal of Medicine 319:1283-1284.
Meredith, Nikki
1984 The Murder Epidemic. Science 84 5(10):42-48 (December).
Meyer, Greg
1992 The Sorry State of Police Tactics: What to Do?
Crime Control Digest 26(June 8):1,3-5.
NCIPC [National Committee for Injury Prevention and Control]
1989 Injury Prevention: Meeting the Challenge. New
York: Oxford University Press.
New Orleans Times-Picayune
1993 Firearms, Violence, and Youth in the New Orleans
Area: A Survey of High School Students. Unpublished.
Nieto, Marcus, Roger Dunstan, and Gus A. Koehler
1994 Firearm-Related Violence in California: Incidence
and Economic Costs. Sacramento: California Research
Bureau, California State Library.
O'Carroll, Patrick W., et al.
1991 Suicide, 184-196. In Mark L. Rosenberg and Mary Ann
Fenley (eds.), Violence in America: A Public Health
Approach. NY: Oxford, 1991.
Rand, Michael R.
1994 Guns and Crime. Crime Data Brief. U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April.
Raspberry, William
1994 Sick People With Guns. Washington Post, October 19,
p. A23.
Ropp, Leland, Paul Visintainer, Jane Uman, and David Treloar
1992 Death in the City: An American Childhood Tragedy.
JAMA 267:2905-2910.
Rosenberg, Mark L., and James A. Mercy
1991 Introduction, pp. 3-13. In Mark L. Rosenberg and
Mary Ann Fenley (eds.), Violence in America:
A Public Health Approach. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rosenberg, Mark L., Patrick W. O'Carroll, and Kenneth E. Powell
1992 Let's Be Clear: Violence is a Public Health
Problem. JAMA 267:3071- 3072.
Senturia, Yvonne, Katherine Kaufer Christoffel, and Mark Donovan
1994 Children's Household Exposure to Guns: A Pediatric
Practice-Based Survey. Pediatrics 93:469-475.
Sheley, Joseph F., Zina T. McGee, and James D. Wright
1992 Gun-Related Violence in and Around Inner-City
Schools. American Journal of Diseases of
Children 146:677-682.
Sheley, Joseph F., and James D. Wright
1993a Motivations for Gun Possession and Carrying
Among Serious Juvenile Offenders. Behavioral
Science and the Law 11:375-388.
1993b Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected
Juvenile Samples. NIJ/OJJDP Research in Brief, U.S.
Department of Justice, December.
Simon, David
1992 A Journalist's Eye View of the Trauma Physician's
Dilemma. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery
118:577-579.
Skorneck, Carolyn
1994 Children's group leads fight against deadly toll of
gunfire. Birmingham News, October 14.
Sloan, John Henry, et al.
1988 Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide:
A Tale of Two Cities. New England Journal of Medicine
319:1256-1262.
Snyder, Howard N.
1992 Arrests of Youth 1990. U.S. Dept. of Justice Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Stepp, Laura Sessions
1994 The Crackdown On Juvenile Crime. Washington Post,
October 15, pp. A1 and 12.
Stevens, Jane Ellen
1994 Treating Violence as an Epidemic. Technology Review
23-30 (August/September).
Treanor, William W., and Marjolijn Bijlefeld
1989 Kids & Guns: A Child Safety Scandal, Second
Edition. American Youth Work Center and the
Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence
[NCBH/CSGV].
U.S. Bureau of the Census
1982 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1982-83.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1987 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1987.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1993 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. House of Representatives
1989 Children and Guns. Hearing before the Select
Committee on Children, Youth, and Families.
101st Congress, 1st Session.
Webster, Daniel W., Howard R. Champion, Patricia S. Gainer, and
Leon Sykes
1992 Epidemiologic Changes in Gunshot Wounds in
Washington, DC, 1983-1990. Archives of Surgery
127:694-698.
Weil, Douglas S., and David Hemenway
1992 Loaded Guns in the Home: Analysis of a National
Random Survey of Gun Owners. JAMA 267:3033-3037.
Whitaker, Catherine J., and Lisa D. Bastian
1991 Teenage Victims: A National Crime Survey Report.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
WHO [World Health Organization]
1989 World Health Statistics Annual. Geneva,
Switzerland.
Wilkinson, Francis
1993 Gunning for Guns. Rolling Stone 16-17, December 9.
Wintemute, Garen J.
1987 Firearms as a Cause of Death in the United States,
1920-1982. Journal of Trauma 27:532-536.
1994 Ring of Fire: The Handgun Makers of Southern
California. Sacramento, Calif.: Violence
Prevention Research Program.
Wright, James D., and Joseph F. Sheley
1993 Motivations for Gun Possession and Carrying Among
Serious Juvenile Offenders. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law 11:375-388.
Zedlewski, Edwin W.
1987 Making Confinement Decisions. Research in Brief.
National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of
Justice, July.
Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-934-2121)
A service of the
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
Fairfax, VA 22030
{PB