From: [bb 063] at [cleveland.Freenet.Edu] (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Dr. Edgar Suter article
Date: 13 Dec 1992 17:10:12 GMT
Here is the full text of Dr. Suter's article as regards the
rubbish and lies contained in many medical journals, incorrectly
referred to as "research." Many of you will find it interesting,
if tough reading.
GUN PROHIBITION IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE - TELLING THE TRUTH?
by Edgar A. Suter, MD Family Practice 5201 Norris Canyon
Road, Suite 140 San Ramon, CA 94583 USA
Abstract
The AMA Council on Scientific Affairs has promulgated a policy
that opposes private ownership of "assault weapons." The policy is
based upon a report citing a single study that stands alone in its
conclusion. The report fails to address considerable research that
undermines the rationale of the prohibitionist policy. Many
misperceptions are perpetuated in that report. The constitutional
impediments to gun prohibition have been casually dispatched by the
Council without sound support. This article presents evidence
previously overlooked by the medical literature.
Acknowledgments
The author is indebted for their review and helpful
suggestions to:
Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D., Research Coordinator, National Rifle
Association, Institute for Legislative Action, Washington, DC
James Boen, Ph.D., Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs,
Professor of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, School of
Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Robert Cottrol, JD, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Rutgers
School of Law, Camden, New Jersey
Col. Martin Fackler, MD, Retired Chief, Wound Ballistics
Laboratory, Letterman Army Hospital, Presidio, San Francisco,
California
Don B. Kates, Jr., LLB, Former Constitutional Law Professor,
St. Louis University School of Law, Civil Rights Attorney, Novato,
California
Gary Kleck, Ph.D., Professor of Criminology, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, Florida
The author is, however, solely responsible for the content of
this paper. Any errors exist despite, not because of, the kind help
of these or other reviewers.
Introduction
JAMA recently published a report submitted by the AMA Council
on Scientific Affairs in support of banning "assault weapons." [1]
A review of the authorities and references cited by the Council
fails to identify the three most comprehensive compilations of
"assault weapons in crime" data. [2, 3, 4] Also missing are the two
most comprehensive reviews of the "guns and violence" literature,
including the National Institute of Justice study. [5, 6] The
Council has not addressed and, therefore, not dispatched the
confounding data of these and many other readily available studies
and sources. The sole datum offered in support of the policy is
from a newspaper study so flawed that the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) disavowed the study's finding. [7]
Though the Council acknowledges an individual right to firearms
ownership, it has dismissed the constitutional impediments to
"assault weapon" bans without analysis or authority.
Comparison of the Council's few and selected sources with the
many other available authorities makes it difficult to conclude
that the Council conducted either a thorough or unbiased
investigation.
Political background
Since more than 200 million firearms are distributed amongst
approximately half of US households, it is difficult to credibly
characterize firearms ownership as unusual or deviant and it is
generally accepted that promoting prohibition of private ownership
of all guns is "political suicide." For these reasons, it is
reported, the attempted tactic of gun prohibitionists has been to
conquer small pieces of the electorate at a time, serially
stigmatizing and then banning certain types of weapons, hoping
eventually to obtain their goal of total gun prohibition. [8]
In support of this, one can observe that "the criminals'
weapon of choice," the "bad guns" we must loathe, change more
frequently than one can explain a change in criminals' weapon
selection. "Undetectable plastic guns", "Saturday Night Specials",
machine guns, "cop killer bullets", and, now, "assault weapons"
have all been described as posing an imminent, if not actual,
danger. Despite the claims, no figures supporting the assertions
are offered or, if figures are offered, analysis shows the figures
are more-or-less-artfully crafted.
Despite more than a century of effort, [9] gun prohibitionists
have unsuccessfully promoted national and state efforts to ban
handguns. Notwithstanding polls alleging support for handgun bans,
in 1982 voters in California rebuffed draconian handgun
restrictions by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. A similar referendum failed
in Massachusetts. By the 1970's and 80's liberal and feminist
thinkers [10] and scholars [11] began to break ranks over the
orthodoxy of gun prohibition. By 1988, even liberal politicians,
such as Rep. Barney Frank, [12] had found the politics of gun
prohibition to be a liability. The California Attorney General's
1988 study had determined "[assault weapons] constitute[d]
absolutely no conceivable threat", so that office would not support
their regulation. [13] Then, a drifter with a long criminal and
psychiatric history, including multiple weapon felonies, was
allowed to purchase several firearms, despite a waiting period and
the background check by the California Department of Justice. In
violation of federal law barring mental defectives from gun
ownership, he obtained an AKM-56S rifle in Oregon and transported
it to California. On January 17, 1989 Patrick Purdy turned his
weapons on children in a Stockton, California school yard, killing
5 of 35 he wounded. [14] It has gone virtually unnoticed that, even
when used against children, almost all of those wounded (86%)
survived.
No matter that even the Law Enforcement Adviser of Handgun
Control Inc. (HCI), Mr. Philip C. McGuire, "agree[d] with the NRA"
that "assault weapons" were not a problem; [15] no matter that a
porous criminal justice system repeatedly put a dangerous and
mentally defective Patrick Purdy on the street, or that the
California Department of Justice allowed weapons in his hands his
guns took the blame. One must grudgingly concede to the NRA that
even stringent gun control failed to keep guns out of the hands of
a known criminal and mental defective.
Perplexingly the California Department of Justice withheld
and continues to withhold its reports showing "assault weapons"
have been no more than an anecdotal crime problem. Handgun Control
Inc., absent supportive data, began its political campaign. The
media has also put its "spin" on the issue:
"It could be argued that the perception that these firearms
are frequently used by criminals is attributable to media reports
that selectively highlight incidents in which they have been used.
One news commentator testified that reports on the use of such
firearms stemmed from a conscious decision on the part of his
broadcast station to influence the public." [16]
Typical for media coverage of gun control issues, [17] all
pretense of objectivity in the press went out the window, [18]
finding us where we are today. As Mercy and Houck have called us
to science in the pages of JAMA, [[19] let us examine the data
available and the problems of data acquisition.
The importance of defining "Assault weapons"
Obtaining a consistent definition of "assault weapon" would
be key to amassing and collating meaningful data pertinent to
legislative and public policy considerations. By 1988, however, the
California Attorney General's Office had already concluded such a
definition was technically impossible. [20] Data acquisition and
analysis have also been hampered by prejudice and disinformation.
Consider the prejudice in the remarks of Dr. Jerome Kassirer,
Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine:
"Data on [assault weapon] risks are not needed because they
have no redeeming social value." [21] [emphasis original]
One of the Council's sources, Mr. Sugarmann, seems disposed
to intentionally obfuscate the issues and deceive the public:
"The semiautomatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the
public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus
semiautomatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine
gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase that chance
of public support for restrictions on these weapons." [22]
as does the California Attorney General's Office memorandum:
"Information on assault weapons would not be sought from
forensic laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on
which the [assault weapon ban] would be based." [23]
No functional or meaningful features or combinations of
features uniquely distinguish the politically incorrect "assault
weapons" from their "sporting" counterparts. Because there is no
consistent definition, comparison of data from different
jurisdictions is impeded.
The definition of "assault rifle"
As Mr. Sugarmann's strategy admits, though cosmetically
similar, "assault weapons" are not the same as "assault rifles."
"Assault rifles" are defined by widely accepted criteria. "Assault
rifles" are capable of machine-gun-like "automatic" fire. They are
designed to wound rather than kill. They fire intermediate power
cartridges, more powerful than most pistols, but considerably less
deadly than hunting rifles which, by definition, are designed to
kill. [24, 25] In any other context, "assault rifle" is a misnomer.
"Assault rifle" wound ballistics
That "Assault rifles" are designed to wound rather than kill
is important. Attempting to address popular misconceptions
regarding their purported deadliness, Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD,
the recently retired Director of the United States Army Wound
Ballistics Research Laboratory, wrote:
"Military bullets are designed to limit tissue disruption -
to wound rather than kill. The Full-metal-jacketed bullet is
actually more effective for most warfare; it removes the one hit
and those needed to care for him newspaper descriptions comparing
their effects with a grenade exploding in the abdomen must cause
the thinking individual to ask: how is it possible that 29 children
and one teacher out of 35 hit in the Stockton school yard survived?
If producers of assault rifles had advertised their effects as
depicted by the media, they would be liable to prosecution under
truth-in-advertising laws." [26]
It would seem therefore that we should question the
reliability of anecdotal assertions such as:
"Of the [South African] patients who were hit with one
projectile [from an AK-47] in any portion of their torso, there
were no survivors whatsoever. Of the patients who were hit with
even a single AK-47 projectile in any extremity, 95% had to have
that extremity amputated." [27]
Streptococcal bacteremia and Clostridial gangrene are the
common complications of any penetrating wound inadequately treated
with antibiotics, necessitating amputation from the iatrogenic
complication, rather than from the injury itself. [28, 29] Though
described in the lay press, the author's search of the peer-
reviewed literature failed to corroborate injuries such as those
described by Trunkey. The literature review finds instead that
"assault weapon" wounds more closely approximate handgun injuries
than rifle injuries:
"[M]any AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no
greater damage than that produced by non-expanding handgun bullets.
The limited tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the
Stockton school yard is consistent with well documented data from
Vietnam as well as with controlled research studies from wound
ballistic laboratories." [30]
Congressional testimony agrees:
"It is my opinion as a court-qualified 'firearms expert' that
six- (or seven-) shot hunting shotguns are more lethal at ranges
under 50 yards than either the semi or full-automatic versions of
the AK-47" [31]
The Council perpetuates myths about "high velocity" bullets
and "assault weapon" wound ballistics that have been definitively
dispelled in the pages of JAMA [32] and elsewhere. [33, 34, 35, 36]
The Council expresses its horror at the devastation caused by the
single shock wave of a "high velocity" bullet, failing to note that
the average Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy utilizes about
2,000 shock wave pulses, each of which is three times that of the
"high velocity" bullet, without any evidence whatsoever of soft
tissue damage. [37] The vogue of undue concern over "cavitation"
in all but non-elastic tissues has justifiably passed, though
without the Council's notice. When the Council cites a newsweekly
interview (of a surgeon who thinks inelastic watermelons are
appropriate human tissue simulants) [38] and elsewhere [39] for
theories of wound ballistics repudiated in peer-reviewed
literature, one must wonder whether the Council wisely or carefully
selected the best scholarship available. If "watermelon wound
ballistics" were valid, deceleration injury from a one foot fall
would similarly crack human tissue.
The public may actually be endangered more by banning less
deadly weapons, handguns and "assault weapons." If handguns were
unavailable, criminals have indicated they would substitute more
deadly weapons (e.g. shotguns and rifles, which can be easily made
concealable by using a hacksaw to make them "sawed off"), rather
than less deadly weapons (e.g. knives and clubs). [40] It is a
reasonable, though untested, hypothesis that the likeliest
substitute for handgun-configuration "assault weapons" would be
equally deadly revolvers and that the likeliest substitute for
rifle-configuration "assault weapons" would be more deadly
shotguns and rifles, resulting in a net increase in morbidity and
mortality.
The lack of definition of "Assault weapon"
Even gun prohibitionists cannot agree on a definition of
"assault weapons." [41] "Assault weapons" are semi-automatic and
not capable of full-automatic machine gun fire (they fire a single
bullet with a squeeze of the trigger rather than a "spray"). As the
California Attorney General's Office has noted, they are not
definable by any unique technical criteria. [42] This is one reason
that legislative attempts have failed to clearly distinguish these
"politically incorrect" guns from functionally identical "sporting
guns" chambered in more deadly calibers. The conundrum,
acknowledged by the Council, is one factor in the legal appeals to
overturn the arbitrary selection of weapons in the California
"Assault Weapon" Ban. [43]
"Assault weapons" encompass an amorphous group of guns
functionally identical to other common hunting and target rifles.
[44] They inconsistently share cosmetic similarities with military
weapons. The Council has not explained how cosmetic features make
guns more deadly than functionally identical weapons. Is a gun more
deadly by virtue of a plastic stock, a pistol grip, a durable
finish, a flash suppressor, tritium night sights, or a bayonet lug?
Have we a spate of drug dealers using unrusty weapons in night
bayonet charges?
Even the capability of accepting "high capacity" magazines is
an unreliable distinction since every one of the common hunting and
target rifles cited above are capable of accepting factory or
after-market "high capacity" magazines.
Contrary to the Council's insinuation, they are not routinely
or factory equipped with "silencers" (properly, "suppressors").
Federal law (and law in 38 of the 50 states) [45] does allow private
citizens to optionally equip their firearms with suppressors under
the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, [46] but the
Council did not offer data to support that such legal options are
either widespread or a problem.
Professor Kleck of the Florida State University School of
Criminology examined the contradictions:
"The difficulties with this political compromise [of
eliminating only some semi-automatic weapons] are obvious. If semi-
automatic fire and the ability to accept large magazines are not
important in crime, there is little reason to regulate ["assault
weapons"]. On the other hand, if these are important attributes,
then it makes little crime control sense (though ample political
sense) to systematically exclude from restriction the most widely
owned models that have these attributes, since this severely limits
the impact of regulation." [47]
Skullduggery and duplicity in the public debate
The first "Assault weapon" ban as a model
A review of the first "assault weapon" ban shows the
conceptual and technical impossibilities involved. The political
skullduggery is also impressive. In 1988 in contemplation of
restrictive legislation, Mr. S.C. Helsley, Acting Assistant
Director of the Investigation and Enforcement Branch of the
California Department of Justice, was asked by his Director
"whether a definition could be formulated which would allow
legislative control of 'assault rifles' without infringing on
sporting weapons." His three page memorandum of October 31, 1988
summarized the 17 supporting technical documents, including data
confirming the nearly non-existent use of "assault weapons" in
crime, and concluded, "I do not think the necessary precision is
possible." [48]
"In early January 1989, the Attorney General and his Executive
Staff were briefed on the difference (or lack thereof) between
assault and non-assault weapons. At the conclusion of that
briefing, the Attorney General, to the obvious displeasure of some
of his key advisers, said that he would not support assault weapon
legislation unless hard data could be developed.
"With the Purdy Stockton school yard shooting in January 1989,
the Attorney General immediately [without 'hard data'] announced
his support for the Roberti/Roos initiatives." [49]
In another memorandum, Mr. Helsley documented, "In the past
20 years, [Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement] specials agents have
never been fired at by a suspect with one of the weapons listed in
12276 PC [California's 'assault weapon' ban]." [50]
Described by California Assemblyman Tom McClintock as "the
ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance," the ban was enacted.
The weapons named by manufacturer and model number in the
California Roberti-Roos "Assault Weapon" Ban of 1989 [51] were
chosen on appearance, not by any forensic criteria or supportive
crime data. [52] In the words of Mr. Helsley of the California
Attorney General's Office three years after the ban's enactment,
"Most if not all of the principal players in crafting the
legislation had absolutely no knowledge of firearms. Most of the
weapons on the list constitute absolutely no conceivable threat.
Publication of a manual for public or law enforcement use will
require that we reach some yet unreached conclusion about which
weapons are covered." [53] [emphasis original]
Because of this approach, because technical advice was
assiduously avoided, [54, 55] the law banned guns that didn't
exist, [56] named gun manufacturers that do not exist, [57] failed
to ban Patrick Purdy's gun, [58] and redundantly banned certain
machine guns. [59] By legislative fiat in the original law, the
Encom CM-55 became an "assault weapon" - that weapon is a manual,
single-shot shotgun that has the menacing feature of a pistol grip.
Most damning, however, is the suppression of two statewide
studies done by the California Attorney General's Office. Both the
1987 Helsley report [60] and the 1991 Johnson report [61] have
shown "assault weapons" were not and are not a crime problem.
Poised for a later-to-fail gubernatorial campaign and ignoring the
very report he commissioned, former Attorney General Van de Kamp
grandstanded in support of the proposed ban of "assault weapons."
California State Senate President Pro-tempore David Roberti's
Office has described how they "managed" the media throughout the
legislative process. [62] For political gain, deception was
perpetrated upon the Californians whose taxes paid for the
suppressed studies. The ban continues to cost taxpayers at least
$4.5 million per year in administrative and enforcement costs. [63]
The law has been pronounced unenforceable by the current
California Attorney General, Dan Lungren. [64] Why then does his
office "stonewall" requests for the reports? His office received
the draft report of the Johnson study on September 26, 1991, yet,
the following December, in a response to a request for the report
by State Senator Robert Presley, [65] Mr. Patrick Kenady, Assistant
Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, stated "such a document
does not exist. What you refer to was a preliminary draft document
not retained in the ordinary course of business." [66] Subsequently
the "not retained" document has been leaked and become readily
available from channels outside the Attorney General's Office. [67]
The raw data of the Johnson report and caveats on its reliability
are now available from the Attorney General's Office. [68]
None of the vagueness, insupportability, errors,
skullduggery, deception, and the resultant expensive and
frightening legal pitfalls that the ban holds for law-abiding gun
owners seems to trouble at least one spokesperson, Mr. Louis Tolley
of Handgun Control Inc., the well-funded gun prohibitionist lobby:
"We believe that if any gun dealer, manufacturer, or gun
owners wants [sic] to test the law in court, they should be given
every opportunity. Arrest them. Put the burden on them to prove the
law is too vague." [69]
This author fails to understand how the public good will be
served, crime will be decreased, or lives spared by jailing or
vindictively depleting honest citizens' financial resources at
trial when they are simply confused by or are unsupportive of bad
law that even their Attorney General's Office cannot understand.
Pointedly, the massive and public civil disobedience of the
California "assault weapon" ban [70] is strong evidence that
otherwise law-abiding citizens are unwilling to even register their
banned guns. New York City recently confiscated "assault weapons"
registered in 1989. Chicago has also enacted a confiscatory ban.
[71] Seeing confiscation follow registration cannot be reassuring
to gun owners weighing the risk and benefit of registering guns of
any kind.
Old news and false claims
The newly-fearsome semi-automatic weapons are of a design type
prevalent since semi-automatic weapons were developed over a
century ago [72] and true assault rifles have been with us for 50
years, since the Wehrmacht's 1942 introduction of the
Maschinerkarabiner 42(H) and the slightly later introduction of the
Sturmgewehr 44. [73] "Assault rifle" is actually a translation of
the German "sturmgewehr." The Soviets followed with the
introduction of the Avtomat Kalashnikova of 1947, the AK-47.
The Council perpetuates the erroneous claim that these weapons
are "easily converted to full automatic fire", though current law
requires that all guns undergo an extensive evaluation by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to prove that they cannot
be easily converted to fully automatic fire. [74] A hint of the
infrequency with which conversions are attempted can be gleaned
from the observation that about 6 of the 4,000 guns seized annually
in Los Angeles have evidence of attempted, though rarely
successful, conversion. [75]
The Council writes "assault weapons are meant to be spray
fired from the hip", citing Handgun Control Inc. as authority.
Though the Council cites Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions
and Background of the Institute for Research on Small Arms in
International Security for explanation of gun nomenclature, the
Council fails to cite pertinent portions of the Fact Sheet's
definition of Assault Rifle:
"designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic
fire." [emphasis added]
or its discussion of Rate of Fire:
"In actual practice the number of shots that can be delivered
from any self-loading weapon is limited by shooter skill,
especially the need to reload The shooter's probability of hitting
a target with a self-loading rifle when pulling the trigger as
rapidly as possible is about 1 hit in 5 shots fired." [76] [emphasis
added]
A portion of the testimony of Dr. Edward C. Ezell, Curator of
the National Firearms Collection, Armed Forces History Division,
Smithsonian Institution, before the US Senate Committee on the
Judiciary is cited by the Council, but the Council missed the
preponderance of his testimony nullifying the Councils imagery.
[77] They also ignored his similarly invalidating open-letter to
Congressman John Dingell. [78]
The Council writes "a reliable estimate of how many of [the
200 million firearms owned by American citizens] are assault
weapons is not available", citing another well-funded gun
prohibitionist group as authority. Though the Council cites Assault
Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions and Background of the Institute for
Research on Small Arms in International Security for explanation
of gun nomenclature, the Council fails to note either Fact Sheet
#2's [79] or Dr. Ezell's educated guess [80] of 3.34million
military-style semi-automatic rifles or roughly 3% of America's
civilian rifles.
Best evidence
Since the Council acknowledges these resources, but not their
full content, one can only speculate why the Council prefers to
cite the partisan imagery of the well-funded gun prohibition lobby,
Handgun Control Inc., rather than non-partisan scholars of the
Library of Congress and Smithsonian Institution.
In an attempt to support that "assault weapons" are the
"weapon of choice for drug gangs," the Council cites dubious
sources and concludes "Clearly the injuries from assault weapons
are taxing hospital emergency departments in large urban areas."
The bases for these assertions? Newspaper articles where, for
example, a 5% increase in multiple gun shot cases over 10 years is
assumed, but not demonstrated to be due to "assault weapons," [81]
a two day survey of one emergency room in Los Angeles County is
embellished by anecdotal stories from four surgeons, [82] other
articles that, without any evidence at all, assume, but do not
demonstrate the wounds they treat are due to "assault weapons,"
[83] and a "background paper" [84] from the same California
Attorney General's Office that suppressed, even denies the
existence of, the other two contradictory statewide studies
described above. Reading the Council's sources fails to detect any
peer-reviewed references for factual matters. Can anyone conclude
that the council conducted a scientific or unbiased investigation?
Is the Council so short of supporting facts that it must
resort to hyperbole and partisan imagery? Let us look at the data.
The unrepresentative nature of gun trace requests
The only evidence offered by the Council that "assault
weapons" are a problem of the proportion suggested by the lay media
are the Cox Newspaper articles, [85] a series by two reporters who
based their conclusion that 11% of crime guns were "Assault
weapons" on gun trace requests of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms. While the Council acknowledges, "The sample of
firearms for which traces are requested is not likely to be
representative of all firearms used in crime", they uncritically
accept the Cox article as best evidence in the face of considerable
documentation that the Cox figures exaggerate the "assault weapon"
problem by a factor of three to 110, depending on locale studied
and the definition of "assault weapon" used.
Gun traces are not representative of the criminal prevalence
of gun use any more than perusing the index of a research journal
necessarily reflects the prevalence of disease. Journal indices and
gun traces largely reflect a level of interest in the topic or the
gun. No study corroborates the prevalence suggested by the Cox or
other gun trace figures.
In an unprecedented move, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms challenged the methods and conclusions of the Cox study.
[86] As early as 1976 one well-known gun control advocate
acknowledged the limitations of gun trace data. [87] In its Report
For Congress on "assault weapons," the Congressional Research
Service of the Library of Congress has elucidated the weaknesses
that make the BATF gun trace system inappropriate for statistical
purposes:
"The [B]ATF tracing system is an operational system designed
to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of
individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics
"Two significant limitations should be considered when
tracing data are used for statistical purposes:
-- First, the firearms selected for tracing do not
constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative
of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any
subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system
may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes
or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes;
-- Second, standardized procedures do not exist to ensure
that officers use consistent definitions or terms in the reports
of circumstances that lead to each trace request. Some trace
requests do not even identify the circumstances that resulted in
the request." [88]
"No crime need be involved [to initiate a gun trace]." [89]
Efforts to return stolen guns to rightful owners, guns "found at
the residence of a suspect though the firearm itself is not
associated with a criminal act" (including tax evasion
investigations), and certain non-violent crimes are included
amongst gun traces. [90] Even the assertion that a gun trace is
related to organized crime "does not necessarily provide
information on an actual violation." [91]
It is axiomatic that the uncaptured guns of unsolved gun
crimes cannot be represented amongst either seized weapons or
traced weapons simply because the weapon is not in police hands to
be tabulated or traced another factor explaining the
unrepresentative nature of gun traces.
The small sampling and unrepresentative nature of gun traces
are clear. Of the 17,000 guns seized by the New York City Police
Department in 1990, only 1000 were selected for tracing. [92] As
another example among many, consider Los Angeles, a hotbed of drug
gangs and violent crime, a city in which the Council's media
sources would have us believe "assault weapon" crime is rampant.
In 1989 "assault weapons" represented approximately 3% of Los
Angeles criminal gun use, but 19% of gun trace requests. [93]
Boston, too, has highlighted "assault weapons" for special trace
attention. [94]
The data
There are limitations on other sources of data. As noted in
the California Attorney General's Office caveats, the
inconsistency of attempts to define "assault weapon" in the few
jurisdictions that, to date, have even made the effort, makes data
comparison difficult. Compilations of statistical firearms
forensics data are additionally hampered by incomplete responses
of varying fractions of polled agencies. Gun traces are, however,
hardly the best evidence. The best and the preponderance of data
currently available indicate that "assault weapons", even in the
hotbeds of violent crime, account for generally 1% to 3% of crime
guns [95] which approximately equals their representation amongst
all guns in the USA. [96] This is shown in essentially all studies
and reports first consider the local jurisdictions:
Jurisdiction Year & Findings
Akron [97] in 1989 - 2.0% of seized guns
Baltimore City [98] in 1990 - 1.5% of seized and surrendered
guns
Baltimore County, MD [99] in 1990 - 0.3% of seized guns
Bexar County (San Antonio), TX [100] in 1987 through 1992 -
0.2% of homicides
- in 1987 through 1992 - 0.0% of suicides - in
1985 through 1992 - 0.1% of seized guns
California [101] in 1987 - 2.3% of seized rifles*
California [102] in 1990 - 0.9% of seized guns
Chicago [103] in 1988 - 1.0% of seized guns
Chicago suburbs [104] in 1980 through 1989 - 1.6% of seized
guns
Denver [105] in 1991 - 0.8% of seized guns
Florida State [106] in 1989 - 3.6% of seized guns*(also
documented declining use of "assault weapons" since 1981)
- Miami in 1989 - 1.4% of homicides
- Miami in 1989 - 3.3% of seized guns*
Massachusetts [107] in 1984 through 1989 - 0.9% of homicides
(study excluded Boston)
Massachusetts [108] in 1988 - 1.9% of homicides
Massachusetts [109] in 1985 through 1991 - 0.7% of all
shootings (including suicides)
Minneapolis [110] in 1987 through 1989 - 0.3% of seized guns
Los Angeles [111] in 1989 - 3.0% of seized guns*
New Jersey [112] in 1988 - 0.0% of homicides
New Jersey [113] in 1989 - 0.0% of homicides
New York City [114] in 1989 - 0.5% of seized guns
San Diego [115] in 1988 through 1990 - 0.3% of seized guns
San Francisco [116] in 1988 - 2.2% of seized guns
Washington, DC [117] in 1988 - 0.0% of seized guns
Washington, DC [118] in 1991 - 3.0% of seized guns
* "assault weapon" broadly defined
Since none of the violence- and drug-ridden urban centers
display a disproportionate representation of "assault weapons"
amongst crime guns, does the Council expect us to believe "spray
fire" weapons are hosing down rural America?
Consider national data overlooked by the Council. The 1990 FBI
Uniform Crime Reports show 4% of all homicides in the United States
involve rifles of any type. [119] Even in the far-fetched,
hypothetical scenario that every single rifle homicide was
committed with an "assault weapon," the total could not exceed that
4%. Consult the data for types of weapons used in any reported
violent crime; the conclusion is inescapably the same.
In a 1990 answer to the National Rifle Association's request
for statistics on the use of "assault weapons", the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) "noted that 12 0f 810 (less than 1.5%)
deaths of law enforcement officers 'during the past decade'
involved ['assault weapons'] and also discussed the dearth of
information on the criminal use of these firearms" [120] Weapons
used against police officers are not necessarily representative of
guns generally used in crime; facing a trained and armed opponent
makes a greater "stand off" distance desirable for the assailant.
Rifles may, therefore, be more prevalent in such circumstance, so
the "less than 1.5% potentially over-represents "assault weapons"
amongst crime guns in general.
Having cited the prohibitionists' estimate from the Cox study,
it strikes balance to briefly note the NRA's estimate of a 0.08%
prevalence of "assault weapons" amongst crime guns. [121]
In researching this paper, a request for data on the use of
"assault weapons" in crime was made of the research staff of
Handgun Control Inc. Helpfully HCI provided copies of the Cox study
(with appended analysis of "assault weapons" traced to crime) and
copies of newspaper articles on "assault weapon" incidents, but,
at the time of submission of this manuscript, no other data or
studies. Having noted the flaws inherent to gun trace data, the
author has not cited gun trace data from local jurisdictions. The
author has also not cited data on "assault weapons", claims of
"increased use," "significant numbers", or other vague claims when
appropriate comparative or substantiating data is absent.
The Council has not even acknowledged the confounding
evidence, much less made an attempt to dispatch it. The Council's
report flounders with its sole datum, the Cox Newspaper article.
While there are important caveats in consideration of any current
data and the definitive analysis of "assault weapons" in crime has
yet to be accomplished, it is certainly difficult to place credence
in any claim that "assault weapons" are the "criminals' weapon of
choice."
Of what "legitimate" use are these "Assault weapons"?
Though it is rather surprising in a democracy to be asked
justification of the ownership of any lawful item, convincing
answers are obtained.
Certain features, such as ergonomic design, durability, and
high-capacity magazines, are noted amongst (though not unique to)
"assault weapons" and other functionally similar weapons. Those
features provoke the ire of prohibitionists, but are features that
make such weapons particularly suited to popular action target
competitions, hunting, home defense, defense against multiple gang
assailants, and community defense and self-protection in times of
riot or natural disaster.
Collecting, sport, and target competition
Despite their military origins, true "assault rifles" do
appeal to the collector and the target shooter. An estimated
177,000 machine guns (a legal classification that includes true
"assault rifles") are lawfully and rightfully owned by private
citizens under the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of
1934. [122] They are legal under state statutes in 46 of the 50
states. [123] They are collected and used virtually without
incident in both formal competition sponsored by the National
Firearms Association and informal target shooting. Even the
Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had
difficulty recalling their criminal misuse. [124]
"Assault weapons" are increasingly used in national and
international target competitions sponsored by the International
Practical Shooting Confederation, the US Practical Shooting
Association, the US Government's National Board for the Promotion
of Rifle Practice, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM),
countless local gun clubs, and the National Rifle Association (the
official National Governing Board for the shooting sports in
America, as such, a member of the US Olympic Committee). Those
active in these competitions number over 35,000 (the number of
shooters rated and ranked for purposes of DCM competitions alone)
[125] - a number higher than reported criminal misusers - and these
competitors consider their activity "legitimate sporting use."
In an aside the Council insinuates "surplus Garands have been
sold at a special price by the US Army to National Rifle Association
members", but fails to tell the whole truth - the rifles are
available at that special price to any target competitor
participating in the DCM matches and that the sales have returned
over $1 million to the US Treasury. Tax dollar for tax dollar, the
DCM matches are the most cost-effective recruiting tool for the US
Armed Forces. [126] The National Rifle Association (NRA) promotes
gun safety and sport shooting. The National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action is the lobbying organization for
the nearly three million dues-paying NRA members. The NRA deserves
innuendo for representing its members no more than does the AMA.
Hunting
The plastic materials and protective metal finishes used in
military weapons of the last three decades have proven to be
particularly durable. [127] Though initially proven on the
battlefield (as sometimes occurs with advances in trauma care), use
of these materials is now common amongst hunting rifles, semi-
automatic and otherwise, as apropos the rough terrain and/or
inclement weather associated with hunting.
Representative Gary Ackerman missed the mark when he asked
whether hunters needed "a Mac 10 machine gun with 30 round banana
clips of armor piercing bullets to bag a quail". [128] Ranchers
protecting their herds and flocks from packs of running, marauding
predators and farmers protecting their crops from destructive
varmints do need light and durable weapons with high magazine
capacity and rapid-fire capability.
Self protection and community defense
The use of these weapons by citizens in community defense can
be demonstrated in several instances. [129, 130, 131, 132] The
higher-than-usual death toll and property damage made memorable the
gripping video footage of uninsured, law-abiding Los Angeles shop
owners using guns, including semi-automatic weapons, to protect
themselves, their families, and their property. They turned back
waves of murderous looters with determined display and, when
necessary, use of their protective weaponry. [133] Reflect that
riots in American cities resulting in death and damage are a
regular phenomenon. No major American city can claim freedom from
the problem. Does the Council have an antipathy to self-defense or
community protection?
As nearly a dozen national studies show, including a study by
the National Institute of Justice [134] and two studies
commissioned by gun-prohibitionist organizations, [135,136] guns
do protect us; they are used defensively by law-abiding citizens
about 606,000 to 960,000 times per year exceeding all estimates of
criminal misuse. Using a gun to resist a crime or assault is safer
than not resisting at all or resisting with means other than
firearms. Guns not only repel crime, guns deter crime as is shown
by numerous surveys of criminals. [137]
Particularly where the powerful images of children are
concerned, any recitation of the data undercutting the exaggerated
extent of the gun problem is met with, "if it saves only one life"
The most loving person, however, must admit that a life lost
because a gun was absent is at least as valuable as a life lost
because a gun was present. We generally would value the life of the
innocent over the aggressor. Remember that "dead" is not
necessarily or even usually "innocent." Given the preponderance of
defensive gun use, we must see pseudo-data and images that pluck
at our heartstrings for what they are, certainly not a basis for
public policy.
The myths of police protection It has been argued than guns
are not needed by citizens because they are protected by the police
and the military, including the National Guard. [138] Despite
increasing law enforcement manpower and expenditures and in view
of the increased crime rate, the effectiveness of that protection
can be rightfully questioned. It can be correctly observed that a
significant, if not majority, of police activity involves "mopping
up" after the crime has already occurred.
Research suggesting that police apprehension offers less
deterrent to criminals than the threat of encountering an armed
victim has been reviewed. [139]
Additionally, it is alarming to recall that armed citizens had
to protect themselves from the police and US National Guard
soldiers participating in the looting in the aftermath of Hurricane
Hugo; [140, 141] and the withdrawal of police protection from riot-
torn areas of Los Angeles; and the two day delay in putting armed
and supplied National Guard soldiers on those same streets of Los
Angeles. [142]
Bursting the legal myth
Case law [143] and government statutes [144] are clear that
the police only have a responsibility to provide some general level
of protection to the community at large, that they are under no
obligation whatsoever to protect any individual, even if in
immediate danger, [145] unless the police have promised special
protection to informants or witnesses. [146] An oral promise to
respond to an emergency call for assistance does not make the
police liable to provide protection. [147]
"What makes the city's position particularly difficult to
understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda
[the victim] did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a
rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the
City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her."
[148]
The harsh reality
Communities can afford neither the liability nor the level of
police expenditures necessary to guarantee the personal safety of
all the individuals who may be (or think they may be) in need of
protection. The level of police powers necessary to attempt such
levels of protection would necessitate more of a police state than
would be currently tolerable in our society.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin
Franklin [149]
Throughout American history we have innumerable examples of
criminal activity, terrorism, civil disorder, and natural
disaster, where the police and military forces have been unable or
unwilling to protect citizens, often for racist reasons. [150] The
relationships amongst gun control, racism, [151, 152, 153, 154] and
political power [155, 156] have been explored.
The logical conclusion?
Citizens have the natural right [157] and the common sense
duty to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and
their property. Particularly for the weak, the infirm, the aged,
or the individual outnumbered by organized gangs or disorganized
rioters, guns are the equalizing tools of self-protection - utopian
lamentations notwithstanding. Honest citizens and their families
should not be disarmed by fantasies of paradise in a "gunless"
utopian society so they may be martyred by sociopaths, crazies, and
criminals.
For those who "know" there is no individual Right to Keep and
Bear Arms
Dr. Kassirer has skeptically noted, "Some believe that
possession [of arms] is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights." [158] A
review of extant scholarship is convincing that such "belief" in
an individual right to bear military style arms is consistent with
historical evidence and case law. Among those who support an
individual right to keep and bear arms are the US Senate
Subcommittee on the Constitution [159] and the US Supreme Court.
[160]
The numerous papers and statements of the authors,
signatories, and commentators of the Bill of Rights show
unequivocally that "militia" was, in their view, the armed citizen.
They clearly abhorred a "select militia," namely the National
Guard, as a threat to freedom as fearful as a "standing army." [161]
Their intent for the Second Amendment was stated most succinctly
by Patrick Henry "The great object is that every man be armed."
[162]
The current United States Code states "The militia of the
United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years
of age and under 45 years of age." [163] The following section of
the United States Code defines what James Madison and the other
Founding Fathers considered a "select militia" or what we recognize
as the National Guard. According to Congress, [164] in order to
allow sending the National Guard overseas, it has been established
under the Congressional authority to "raise and support armies"
[165], not under its authority "to provide for organizing, arming,
and disciplining the militia." [166] All Americans were reminded
of this in the 1989 US Supreme Court decision Perpich v. Department
of Defense [167] which prevented governors from withholding their
National Guard units from exercises outside the United States. The
US v. Miller decision [168] is often cited and misunderstood. Not
only is it historically unassailable that "militia", to the authors
of the Bill of Rights, was the armed citizen, but the US Supreme
Court's holding in US v. Miller states explicitly that the
"militia" comprises "all males physically able of acting in concert
for the common defense." That same case acknowledged the individual
citizen's right to own military weapons "part of the ordinary
military equipment" or which "could contribute to the common
defense." Miller was freed at the federal district level, on Second
Amendment grounds, from charges of possession of a "sawed-off"
shotgun for which he had not paid the tax required under the
National Firearms Act of 1934. The federal attorney pursued an
appeal. Miller died before the appeal reached the Supreme Court
leaving his position unargued. Though ample evidence from the
trench warfare of "The Great War" was available, no evidence that
a "sawed-off" shotgun was a "militia" weapon had been introduced.
The Court held that, absent formal evidence submitted on Miller's
behalf, it could not take "judicial notice" of whether or not a
sawed-off shotgun was a protected weapon. Because Miller's position
was unargued, his indictment was upheld leaving gun prohibitionists
confused about the Court's holdings.
In Cases v. US, building upon US v. Miller, the Supreme Court
found it could regulate, but not"prohibit the possession or use of
any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." [169]
In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, [170] a Fourth Amendment case
holding that the warrant requirement is inapplicable to the search
of a home in a foreign country, the Court noted that "the people"
who have the right to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to
be secure in their papers and effects are one and the same "the
people" who have the right to keep and bear arms. The Court
explicitly held that the authors of the Bill of Rights did not
somehow confuse "the people" with "the state." The Court also noted
that "people" have rights and that the "state" has powers. The
powers of the state regarding the militia were clearly delimited
in the body of the US Constitution which preceded the Bill of
Rights. The power of the states to raise their own militias and the
power of the federal government to raise an army are not exclusive
of the inherent, individual right of the people to keep and bear
arms. The Bill of Rights was felt a necessary addition by
Federalists and anti-Federalists alike to protect the many inherent
rights of the people. [171] It is groundless to assert that the
Second Amendment protects powers delegated to the government.
Justice Brennan, expanding upon the opinion, reminded us that
the rights are inherent, not granted or rescinded by fickle
government whimsy:
"[rights are not] given to the people from the government
[T]he Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create'
rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our
Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be
preexisting." [172]
All these holdings undercut the "prohibitionist theory" of the
Second Amendment. At the US Supreme Court level, the
"prohibitionist theory" rests largely on the refusal of the Court
to hear certain gun cases (denial of certiorari petitions), rather
than on the Court's explicit holdings in the admittedly few extant
holdings. [173] Those few holdings have not used the provisions of
the Fourteenth Amendment to explicitly "incorporate" the Second
Amendment protections against the states. There is, however,
increasing legal scholarship supporting such incorporation. [174,
175] Only in Second Amendment matters do we see certain "liberals"
take unique and hypocritical refuge in a "states' rights" posture.
The pace of Second Amendment litigation parallels legislative
infringements and jurisdictional conflicts, so the Supreme Court
is unlikely to indefinitely evade the incorporation issue.
The linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment is
unambiguous. [176] While the introductory phrase "A well-regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is
partially explanatory, there is nothing equivocal, qualified, or
limiting in the substantive guarantee of the declarative phrase
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." There are no qualifiers as in the right to be secure
against "unreasonable searches and seizures." [177]
Despite efforts by the well-funded gun prohibitionist lobby
to denigrate this individual right as the "insurrectionist theory",
[178] their "prohibitionist theory" of the Second Amendment is the
theory that flounders. So, if gun prohibitionists do not find the
protective or recreational uses of firearms persuasive reasons for
sane, law abiding, adult citizens to own the firearms of their
choice, and in view of the constitutional impediments to gun
prohibition, their only legal option to accomplish their goal is
to first convince Americans that they have no lawful or natural
right to self-protection from felons or tyrants and then to amend
the US Constitution.
Public policy by emotion, carelessness, or deception
The Council has had the opportunity to make its case on
"assault weapons." Any objective review of the available data
decimates the purported factual underpinnings of the Council's
position. If, after a review of the best evidence available, the
Council or other readers continue to espouse a prohibitionist
policy, so be it. If those sentiments are based on fears of what
people "might" do with this or that weapon, so be it. If those
sentiments are based on a general antipathy towards guns, so be it.
Let us not, however, imagine that the prohibitionist view is
supported by anything else. The emperor has no clothes. Neither
hoplophobic anxieties; prohibitionist agitprop; aberrant,
selected, and sculpted "factoids"; nor political skullduggery and
deception are proper bases for public policy.
Other areas of gun prohibitionist interest have been equally
biased and devoid of substance. Many firearms owners are physicians
who are familiar with the indictments [179, 180] of the highly
politicized Center for Disease Control (CDC) policies regarding gun
prohibition and their funding of related research. Reviewing the
charges might make one question whether or not the CDC is simply a
"factory of fallacy" and whether or not taxpayers should properly
pay for polemics masquerading as research.
The near virtual exclusion of data and analysis that confounds
the prohibitionist position makes it appear that medical journals
operate on the principle that "freedom of the press belongs to
those who own one." [181] Some dream of a day when we will see:
-- standardization of gun data collection to enhance public
policy considerations,
-- no taxpayer funding of rhetoric,
-- more incisive analysis and critical, but unbiased, review
of articles and policies before publication,
-- less polemics and fewer contrived "factoids" from
researchers, editors, officers, and committees enamored of their a
priori conclusions, and
-- discontinuance of editorial policies that stifle and
marginalize objective research and dissenting opinions.
The personal [182, 183] and monetary [184, 185] costs of guns
compared with medical "misadventure" leaves room to wonder whether
doctors are more deadly and costly than guns. Drs. Organ and Fry
remind us that 25,000 trauma deaths per year [about twice the
number of annual gun homicides and approximately equaling total
annual gun deaths] are the result of an inadequate trauma system.
[186] These sobering perspectives should not be lost on the
Council, the House of Delegates, the officers of the AMA, the CDC,
or its stable of researchers while they toe the politically correct
line on gun prohibition.
The compromise essential to effective gun control
That the cooperation of law-abiding gun owners is necessary
to the success of any regulatory scheme is routinely overlooked by
gun control and prohibition advocates. The portion of 200 million
firearms in the hands of Americans who recognize an inherent right
to those arms will not evaporate with the stroke of a pen.
Intolerable police state tactics will be necessary to obtain even
their marginal compliance too high a price for too little benefit.
The author supports education in safe, responsible firearms
ownership by mentally competent and law-abiding adults. There
should be certain punishment for violent crime regardless of
instrumentality. Victimless possession of objects guns responsibly
stored and safely used should neither be banned nor restricted. The
author sees no justification for gun bans of any kind. He, like
Thomas Jefferson, finds support in a favorite passage penned in
1764 by Cesare Beccaria:
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown
in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws
that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They
disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit
crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to
violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the
code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can
be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed,
would put an end to personal liberty so dear to men, so dear to the
enlightened legislator and subject innocent persons to all the
vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They
ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of
crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated
facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences
and advantages of a universal decree." [187]
Criminal and psychiatric background checks can be
accomplished without leaving residual records of ownership that can
later be used to aid confiscation. The benefits of instantaneous
background checks must be weighed against the risks of privacy loss
inherent to easily-accessed, centralized data on mental health
records.
License to carry weapons, openly or concealed, should be
available to sane, law-abiding adults who demonstrate safety,
skill, and knowledge of the law related to self-protection. Such
license should not entail additional encumbrance nor be subject to
arbitrary police discretion or subjective interpretation of "need"
or "good cause."
Inexpensive weapons should be available to the poor,
particularly since they are most at risk for victimization.
Ironically it is two gun control but not prohibition
advocates, Profs. Kates and Kleck, who have most illuminated these
public policy matters. Each has made thorough evaluation of the
broad expanse of research available (including their own research)
and derived rational and objectively supportable suggestions for
revising controls extending certain effectual controls and
rejecting the ineffectual, the unattainable, or the merely symbolic
with an eye towards realistic, attainable goals. They emphasize
that gun control is not a panacea, only incremental improvements
are attainable. [188, 189] The underlying causes of violence all
violence, not just gun violence must be addressed.
In view of the one-sided nature of numerous, ineffectual
concessions eroding gun rights to date, the author must emphasize
that gun owners should concede no further ground until ineffectual
and even marginally effectual controls and bans in other words, all
controls but those described above are lifted. Too often the
prohibitionist view of "compromise" is "gun owners have five
apples, we are morally entitled and, therefore, demand them all."
So long as the strident prohibitionists frame the debate,
their bigotry, symbolism, [190] deception, and intransigence will
prevent effectual solutions. Their presumption of moral
superiority is undeserved and an impediment to rational, effectual,
and cost-effective solutions. Utopia is not one of our choices.
Though not a promising expenditure of effort, the author
acknowledges one utopian fantasy; governments should not possess
instruments of coercion and violence denied to their citizens. That
governments should be denied the same weapons of mass destruction
denied their citizens is already a matter of some public accord.
What else? Promising directions
Good evidence exists that violence in entertainment
contributes significantly towards violence in our society. [191,
192] That unwelcome contribution should be minimized. Voluntary
restraint by an entertainment industry cognizant of its ill effects
on children is desirable. Parents may exercise control over their
children's viewing habits. The misdirection of anger and
frustration amongst the poor and rich alike can be mitigated by
training. [193]
We should reassess national drug policies that make the drug
trade so attractively profitable that people will kill to reap
those profits. We should cease relegating the education and moral
instruction of our children to the state.
We should discourage the view that life is or could be risk-
free or that liberty does not have a price worth paying. We should
retire the rhetoric of egalitarian, passive entitlement and revive
the values of individual responsibility. We are not tossed
completely helplessly on a sea of circumstance.
Certainly we must love and cherish our children, raising them
with an appreciation of individual responsibility, liberty,
learning, and the sanctity of life the libertarian views that may
guide this nation toward better days.
Footnotes
1 American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs.
Assault Weapons as a Public Health Hazard in the United States. in
JAMA 1992; 267: 3070.
2 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
3 Florida Assault Weapons Commission. Assault Weapons/Crime
Survey in Florida For Years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989. Tallahassee,
FL: May 18, 1990.
4 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault
Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General,
California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991.
5 Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Weapons, Crime, and Violence in
America: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice,
National Institute of Justice. 1981.
6 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
7 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Press Release.
undated.
8 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2.
9 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the
United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979.
10 Silver CR. "Self-Defense, Handgun Ownership, and the
Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society," Salter J and
Kates DB. "The Necessity of Access to Firearms by Dissenters and
Minorities Whom Government is Unwilling or Unable to Protect,"
among others in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979.
11 Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." Yale Law
Journal. 1989; 99: 637-59.
12 Dionne EJ. "A Liberal's Liberal Tells Just What Went
Wrong." New York Times. December 22, 1988.
13 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 1.
14 Kempsky N, Chief Deputy Attorney General. A Report to
Attorney General John K. Van de Kamp on Patrick Edward Purdy and
the Cleveland School Killings. Office of the Attorney General,
California Department of Justice. October 1989.
15 Mohr C. "House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work." New York
Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15.
16 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons':
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues."
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). p. 38.
17 Kleck G. "The Mass Media and Information Management: News
Media Bias in Covering Gun Control Issues." paper presented to the
annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology. San
Francisco, CA. November 20-23, 1991.
18 Hammond, G, Time magazine. form letter to persons
complaining about Time's firearms coverage. August 1, 1989. in
Morgan E and Kopel D. The Assault Weapons Panic: "Political
Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Independence Issue
Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence Institute. October 10,
1991.
19 Mercy JA and Houck VN. "Firearms Injuries: A Call for
Science." JAMA. 1986; 255: 3143-4.
20 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California
Department of Justice. October 31, 1988.
21 Kassirer JP. Correspondence. N Engl J. Med 1992;
326:1159-60.
22 Sugarmann, J. "Assault Weapons and Accessories." memo to
the "New Right Watch". 1988. n Morgan, Eric and Kopel, David. The
Assault Weapons Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the
Constitution. Independence Issue Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO:
Independence Institute. October 10, 1991. p. 24.
23 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2.
24 Defense Intelligence Agency. Small Arms Identification
and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries. Washington, DC:
US Govt. Printing Office. 1988. p. 105.
25 Ezell EC. Small Arms of the World. Harrisburg, PA:
Stackpole Books. 1983. p. 515.
26 Fackler ML. Letter to the Editor. Wall Street Journal.
April 10, 1989. p. A-13.
27 Trunkey D. Affidavit in opposition to plaintiff's motion
for preliminary injunction, Oregon State Shooting Association, et
al. v. Multnomah County, et al.. September 4, 1990.
28 Fackler ML, Breteau JPL, Courbil LJ, Taxit R, Glas J, and
Fievet JP. "Open Wound Drainage versus Wound Excision in Treating
the Modern Assault Rifle Wound." Surgery. 1989; 105: 576-84.
29 Fackler ML and Kneubuehl BP. "Applied Wound Ballistics."
J Trauma. 1990; 6(2) Supplement: 32-7.
30 Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A.
"Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick Purdy in the
Stockton, California, Schoolyard Shooting of January 17, 1989." Am
J Forensic Medicine and Path. 1990; 11(3): 185-90.
31 Knox N. testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on
HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on
Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 304-6.
32 Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common
Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6.
33 Lindsey D. "The Idolatry of Velocity, or Lies, Damn Lies,
and Ballistics." J Trauma. 1980; 20; 10689.
34 Fackler ML. "Ballistic Injury." Annals of Emergency
Medicine. 1986; 15; 1451-5.
35 Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics." in Trunkey DD and Lewis
FR, editors. Current Therapy of Trauma, vol 2. Philadelphia: BC
Decker Inc. 1986. pp. 94-101.
36 Fackler ML, Breteau JPL, Courbil LJ, Taxit R, Glas J, and
Fievet JP. "Open Wound Drainage versus Wound Excision in Treating
the Modern Assault Rifle Wound." Surgery. 1989; 105: 576-84.
37 Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common
Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6.
38 Pinkney DS. "ERs Seeing More 'War Wounds' Caused by
Assault Weapons." American Medical News. April 14, 1989; 3: 42-5.
39 Feuchtwanger MM. "High Velocity Missile Injuries: A
Review." J R Soc Med. 1982; 75: 966-9. 40 Wright JD. and Rossi
PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their
Firearms. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. p. 220 and Table 11.3
at p. 221.
41 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. pp. 2-4.
42 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California
Department of Justice. October 31, 1988.
43 e.g. Fresno Rifle Club v. Van de Kamp, 746 F. Supp. 1415.;
Abascal, Kasler, McCord, Danto, Mauser, Magaddino, Snow, Bowman,
Henderson, Ford, Suter, Erler, Mixson, Howard, Krot, Colt's
Manufacturing Co., Threat Management Institute v. Lundgren[sic]
44 e.g., among many, Remington 740, Remington 7400 Sporter,
Heckler and Koch 770, Heckler and Koch SRT-9, Ruger Mini-14 Ranch
Rifle, Browning Automatic Rifle, Valmet Hunter, Galil Hadar,
Springfield Armory M1A, Springfield Armory SAR-4800, Armscorp T-48
45 Shea D. Machine Gun Dealers Bible. Hot Springs, AR: Lane
Publishing. 1991. p. 199.
46 USC XXVI 5801-5872.
47 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 72.
48 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California
Department of Justice. October 31, 1988.
49 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 1.
50 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California
Department of Justice. February 13, 1991.
51 California Penal Code 12275-12290
52 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2.
53 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 4.
54 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2.
55 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault
Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General,
California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991.
56 Gilbert Equipment Company Striker 12, Calico M-900
pistol, Heckler & Koch H-93
57 Baretta, Steyer
58 Made in China AKM-56S
59 the Avtomat Kalashnikova, Steyr AUG (Armee Universal
Gewehr), Cetme G-3
60 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. Memorandum
to Allen Sumner, Senior Assistant Attorney General Re: AB1509
(Agnos). June 2, 1987.
61 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault
Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General,
California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991.
62 Forsyth R, Media Director for Senate President Pro-
tempore David Roberti, California State Senate. "Assault Weapons
in California: A Case Study in Issue Management and the Media."
Senate of the State of California. presented at National Conference
of State Legislators. Chicago, IL. December 10-12, 1989.
63 Bock AW. "Statistical overkill on banned rifles." The
Orange County Register. June 28, 1992. p. 3.
64 Los Angeles Times. "Assault Weapons Ban Called
Unenforceable." June 25, 1991. at A-3, A-22.
65 Presley R, California State Senator. Letter to Gregory
Cowart, Director of Law Enforcement, California Department of
Justice. November 6, 1991.
66 Kenady P, Asst. Attorney General for Legislative Affairs,
California Department of Justice. Letter to the Honorable Robert
Presley, California State Senator. December 20, 1991. p. 1.
67 Bock AW. "Statistical overkill on banned rifles." The
Orange County Register. June 28, 1992. p. 3.
68 Lungren DE, Attorney General, State of California and
Kenady PM, Assistant Attorney General for Legislation, State of
California. letter to Edgar A, Suter, MD. August 3, 1992.
69 Tolley L, spokesman, Handgun Control Inc. memorandum to
Donna Brownsey, assistant to California State Senator David
Roberti. "California Assault Weapon Lists." July 17, 1991. p. 1.
in Morgan E and Kopel D. The Assault Weapons Panic: "Political
Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Independence Issue
Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence Institute. October 10,
1991. p. 49 footnote 12.
70 Lucas G. "State Semiautomatic Gun Registrations Called
Surprisingly Low." SF Chronicle. March 10, 1992. p. A15.
71 Schneider J. "Chicago Semi-Auto Ban Effective Aug. 14."
The New Gun Week. July 24, 1992. p. 1.
72 Datig FA. The Luger Pistol. 1962. Borden Publishing
Company. pp. 37-38. regarding the development of the Borchardt
semi-automatic pistol.
73 Hogg IV and Weeks J. Military Small Arms of the 20th
Century - 5th Edition. Northfield, IL: DBI Books. 1985. pp. 170-1.
74 U.S.C. XXVI Chap. 53. 5801 et seq.
75 Trahin J, Detective, Firearms/Ballistics Unit, Los
Angeles Police Department. testimony before the US Senate.
Hearings on S386 and S747 Before the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. 101st Congress, 1st
Session. May 5, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office. p. 379.
76 Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions and Background.
Washington, DC: Institute for Research on Small Arms in
International Security; March 24, 1989.
77 Ezell EC, curator of the National Firearms Collection at
the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History.
testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on HR1154 Before the
Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
78 Ezell EC. open letter to The Honorable John Dingell. March
27, 1989. 79 Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 2 Quantities of Semi-
automatic "Assault Rifles' Owned in the United States. Washington,
DC: Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security;
March 24, 1989.
80 Ezell EC, curator of the National Firearms Collection at
the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History.
testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on HR1154 Before the
Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
81 Goldfarb B. "Hospitals Endure a Drug War Assault." USA
Today. March 19, 1990. P. D-1.
82 Pinkney DS. "ERs Seeing More 'War Wounds' Caused by
Assault Weapons." American Medical News. April 14, 1989; 3: 42-5.
83 McCarthy C. "Medical Price of Violence; Guns and Drugs
are Stretching Emergency Rooms to the Limit." Washington Post.
February 21, 1989. p. Z-14.
84 Assault Weapons: Background Paper. Sacramento, CA:
California Attorney General's Office; February 1989.
85 Cox Newspapers. Firepower: Assault Weapons in America.
Washington, DC: Cox Enterprises, 1989.
86 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Press Release.
undated.
87 Zimring FE. "Street Crime and New Guns: Some Implications
for Firearms Control." Journal of Criminal Justice. 1976; 4: 95-
107.
88 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons':
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues."
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992).
Appendix B. pp. 65-76.
89 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons':
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues."
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992).
Appendix B at p. 66.
90 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons':
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues."
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992).
Appendix B at p. 70.
91 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons':
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues."
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992).
Appendix B at p. 71.
92 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons':
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues."
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992).
Appendix B at p. 67.
93 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 75.
94 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons':
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues."
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992).
Appendix B at p. 69.
95 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2.
96 Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 2 Quantities of Semi-automatic
"Assault Rifles' Owned in the United States. Washington, DC:
Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security;
March 24, 1989.
97 Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of
the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session.
April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p.
114-5.
98 Baltimore Police Department. Firearms Submissions. 1990.
99 Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of
the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session.
April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p.
77.
100 DiMaio V, Chief Medical Examiner, Bexar County, TX. letter
to George Lundberg, MD. June 11, 1992.
101 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. Memorandum
to Allen Sumner, Senior Assistant Attorney General Re: AB1509
(Agnos). June 2, 1987.
102 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault
Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General,
California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991.
103 Simkins JE. "Control Criminals, Not Guns." Wall Street
Journal. March 25, 1991.
104 Mericle JG. "Weapons seized during drug warrant executions
and arrests." unpublished report derived from files of Metropolitan
Area Narcotics Squad, Will and Grundy Counties, IL. 1989. in Kleck
G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2.
105 Reply Brief of State of Colorado, Robertson, et al.
plaintiffs, State of Colorado, plaintiff-intervenor v. City and
Country of Denver. # 90CV603 (Colorado District Court). p. 13-15.
106 Florida Assault Weapons Commission. Assault Weapons/Crime
Survey in Florida For Years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989. Tallahassee,
FL: May 18, 1990.
107 Boston Globe. March 26, 1989. p. 12. in Kleck G. Point
Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
1991.
108 Arnold M, Massachusetts State Police, Firearms
Identification Section. Massachusetts State Police Ballistics
Records. March 14, 1990.
109 Arnold M, Massachusetts State Police, Firearms
Identification Section. Massachusetts State Police Ballistics
Records. April 11, 1991
110 Reins W, Sgt. memorandum to Minneapolis Police Chief J.
Laux. April 3, 1989.
111 Trahin J, Detective, Firearms/Ballistics Unit, Los
Angeles Police Department. testimony before the US Senate.
Hearings on S386 and S747 Before the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. 101st Congress, 1st
Session. May 5, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office. p. 379.
112 Newark Star Register. "Florio Urges Ban on Assault Rifles,
Stresses His Support for Abortion." July 18, 1989. p. 15.
113 Constance J, Deputy Chief, Trenton, NJ Police Department.
testimony before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings
Committee. March 7, 1991. p. 3.
114 Moran, Lieutenant, New York City Police Ballistics Unit.
in White Plains Reporter-Dispatch. March 27, 1989.
115 San Diego Union. "Smaller Guns are 'Big Shots' with the
Hoods." (reporting a study by the city's firearms examiner). August
29, 1991.
116 Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the
House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session.
April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p.
68.
117 Wilson GR, Chief, Firearms Section, Metropolitan Police
Department. Wall Street Journal. April 7, 1989. p. A-12, col. 3.
and New York Times. Apr. 3, 1989. p. A14.
118 Wilson GR, Chief, Firearms Section, Metropolitan Police
Department. January 21, 1992. in Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress
'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and
Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The
Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4,
1992). Table 5. p. 18.
119 FBI. "Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States
1990." 1991. Washington DC: Us Government Printing Office. p. 12.
120 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons':
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues."
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). p. 23.
121 Blackman PH. "Senators Use False Numbers to Cover Up Gun
Ban Votes." The American Rifleman. November 1990. pp. 49-50.
122 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. NFA Weapons
Inventory: Data through 12/31/90. Computer run of 1/14/91.
123 Shea D. Machine Gun Dealers Bible. Hot Springs, AR: Lane
Publishing. 1991. p. 199.
124 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 4.
125 Competitions Division, National Rifle Association.
personal communication. July 21, 1992.
126 Baker JJ, "DCM Notes." The American Rifleman. June 1990.
p. 72.
127 Harris CE. "Bluing and Beyond." The American Rifleman.
December 1982. p. 24.
128 135 Congressional Record 1868. February 28, 1989.
129 Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1988, Section II. p. 3.
reporting on a housing project using Kalashnikov-style rifles and
other semi-automatic weapons to drive back an attack by the
"Bloods" gang
130 Washington Times, November 25, 1988, Section C. p. 6.
reporting on a block club defending its community from the "Bloods"
gang
131 135 Congressional Record S1869-70 (daily ed. February 28,
1989). in Morgan, Eric and Kopel, David. The Assault Weapons Panic:
"Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution.
Independence Issue Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence
Institute. October 10, 1991. p. 16. citing several instances of
citizens defending their communities using "assault weapons" in
cases of domestic disorder following natural disasters such as
blizzards, floods, and hurricanes.
132 Cable News Network. Video footage of Korean shop owners
during the April 1992 Los Angeles riots. April 31, 1992.
133 Foster SE. "Guns and Property." The Free Market. Ludwig
von Mises Institute. July 1992; 10: 1 & 7.
134 Wright J D., Rossi PH and Daly K. Under the Gun: Weapons,
Crime, and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1983.
135 Cambridge Reports, Inc. An analysis of public attitudes
towards handgun control. a survey for the Center for the Study and
Prevention of Handgun Violence (an organization sharing directors
with Handgun Control, Inc.).
136 survey for National Alliance Against Violence by Peter
Hart & Assoc. in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
137 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chapter 4.
138 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment."
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.
139 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. pp. 130-8.
140 Hernandez M. "US Orders In Troops to Quell Island
Violence." Los Angeles Times. September 21, 1989. p. 1.
141 Hyman S. "Hurricane Looting Rains Its Lessons Left and
Right." Los Angeles Times. October 1, 1989. Opinion Section. p. 5.
142 Foster SE. "Guns and Property." The Free Market. Ludwig
von Mises Institute. July 1992; 10: 1 & 7.
143 South v. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (1856);
Bowers v. DeVito, US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d.
616 (1882).
144 for example, California Government Code 845. "Failure to
provide police protection
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service." 145 Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr. 5
(1975).
146 Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d. 1306 (D.C. App.
1983).
147 Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d. 1
(1981).
148 Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d. 897 (1968).
149 Franklin B. Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759.
150 Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward
an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal.
December 1991: 80; 309-61.
151 Tonso WR. "Gun Control: White Man's Law." Reason. December
1985. pp. 22-25.
152 Tahmassebi S. "Gun Control and Racism." George Mason
University Civil Rights Law Journal. Summer 1991; 2: 67-99.
153 Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward
an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal.
December 1991: 80; 309-61.
154 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the
United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979.
155 Kessler RG. "Gun Control and Political Power." Law &
Policy Quarterly. July 1983: Vol. 5, #3; 381-400.
156 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the
United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979.
157 Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-
Protection." Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.
158 Kassirer JP. "Firearms and the Killing Threshold." N. Engl
J Med 1991; 325:1647-49.
159 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution
of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th.
Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982.
160 US v. Cruickshank, 95 US. 542 (1874), held that the
individual right to possess arms existed independent of the Second
Amendment and US v. Miller, 307 US. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed.
1206 (1939) is discussed in the body of this article.
161 Halbrook SP. "The Right of the People or the Power of the
State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment."
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 131-207
162 Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of
Virginiataken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, 275
(2nd ed., Richmond) 1805.
163 USC X 311(a)
164 House Report No. 141, 73rd. Congress, 1st. Session. 1933.
pp. 2-5.
165 US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (12).
166 US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (16).
167 Perpich v. Department of Defense. 110 S.Ct. 2418 (1990).
168 Miller v. US. 307 US 174 (1938).
169 Cases v. US, 131 F.2d. 916 (1st Cir. 1942) at 922.
170 US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. 494 US 259 (1990).
171 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution
of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th.
Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982.
172 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution
of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th.
Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982. p. 288.
173 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment."
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.
174 Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth
Amendment." The Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.
175 Halbrook S. "Freedmen, Firearms, and the Fourteenth
Amendment" in That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a
Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico
Press. 1984. Chap. 5.
176 Halbrook SP. "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic
Analysis of the Right to 'Bear Arms.'" Law and Contemporary
Problems. Winter 1986; 49 (1): 151-62.
177 US Constitution. The Bill of Rights. Article IV.
178 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment."
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.
179 Blackman PH. 1990. "Criminology's Astrology: The Center
for Disease Control Approach to Public Health Research on Firearms
and Violence". a paper presented to the American Society of
Criminology. Baltimore, MD November 7-10.
180 Blackman PH. 1991. open letter to the Director of the
Office of Scientific Integrity Review of the US Public Health
Service. April 23, 1991.
181 Liebling AJ. American Film. 3:67. July 1978.
182 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 43.
183 Harvard Medical Practice Study. "Harvard Medical Practice
Study." Unpublished report to the State of New York. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Medical School 1990. in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and
Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
184 Wenzel RP. "The Mortality of Hospital Acquired Bloodstream
Infections: Need for a New Vital Statistic" Int J Epidemiol. 1988;
17: 225-7.
185 Martin MJ, Hunt TK, Hulley SB. "The Cost of
Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. 1988; 260: 3048-50.
186 Organ CH and Fry WR. "Surgery." JAMA. 1992; 268: 413-4.
187 Beccaria C. On Crimes and Punishments. 1764. (translated
1963 by H. Paolucci). in Halbrook S. That Every Man Be Armed: The
Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: University
of New Mexico Press. 1984. p. 35.
188 Kates DB. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic
Assessment of Gun Control. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research
Institute for Public Policy. 1990.
189 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
190 Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle
over Gun Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review
1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992.
191 Centerwall BS. "Television and Violence: The Scale of the
Problem and Where to Go From Here." JAMA. 1992; 267: 3059-63.
192 Centerwall BS. "Exposure to Television as a Risk Factor
for Violence." Am. J. Epidemiology. 1989; 129: 643-52. 193 Spivak
H, Prothrow-Stith D, and Hausman AJ. "Dying Is No Accident."
Pediatric Clinics of North America. 1988; 35: 1339-47. u an
individual right to keep and bear arms are the US Senate
Subcommittee on the Constitution159 and the US Supreme Court.160
The numerous papers and statements of the authors, signatories, and
commentators of the Bill of Rights show unequivocally that militia
was, in their view, the armed citizen. They clearly abhorred a
select militia, namely the National Guard, as a threat to freedom
as fearful as a standing army.161 Their intent for the Second
Amendment was stated most succinctly by Patricbb --
[bb 063] at [Cleveland.Freenet.Edu] Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
From talk.politics.guns Wed Dec 16 09:38:57 1992 Path:
mdivax1!mdisea!uw-coco!uw-
beaver!news.u.washington.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!c
s.utexas.edu!asuvax!asuacad!gundevil Organization: Arizona State
University Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 14:09:36 MST From: Shooting
Club at ASU <[G--DE--L] at [ASUACAD.BITNET]> Message-ID:
<[92349 140936 GUNDEVIL] at [ASUACAD.BITNET]> Newsgroups:
talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Help on NEJM info References:
<[1 gasehINNn p b] at [usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu]> Lines: 74
----------------------------Original message---------------
------------- This is from "Preston K. Covey" <c
--
Greg Booth BSc />_________________________________
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC [########[]_________________________________>
/\/\OTOROLA Wireless Data Group, \> I don't speak for Motorola
/ \Subscriber Products Division, [b--o--h] at [mdd.comm.mot.com]