Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc From: [s t ratos] at [netcom.com] (Steve Fischer) Subject: The Truth about Victim Disarmament Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 18:09:44 GMT This is file /users/ro/tmi/WhitePpr from ftp.crl.com: ==================================================================== THE TRUTH ABOUT VICTIM DISARMAMENT A White Paper On Firearms And Crime Presented to Governor Pete Wilson's California Crime Summit February 8, 1994 Peter Alan Kasler, J.D Contents ANTI-GUN EXTREMISM 1 THE VERDICT OF AMERICAN CRIMINOLOGY 3 THE VALUE OF GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE 8 DEFEAT CRIME BY PERMITTING ARMED SELF-DEFENSE 9 AVAILABILITY OF CONCEALED CARRY LICENSES REDUCES CRIME 12 VICTIM DISARMAMENT (GUN CONTROL) KILLS 13 CALIFORNIA PRACTICES VICTIM DISARMAMENT 13 INDIVIDUALS MUST PROVIDE THEIR OWN PROTECTION 14 CONCLUSION 15 APPENDIX: A VICTIM OF GUN CONTROL [This is my "New York Times" Op-Ed, not included here] 1. ANTI-GUN EXTREMISM Like most Americans and most gun owners, I support reasonable gun controls. What I do not support, however, is disarming victims. The real cause of the gun control controversy is that the gun control movement is dominated by extremists seeking to go far beyond reasonable control. Indeed, they strive for victim disarmament. They want to outlaw self-defense which they condemn as barbarism.[3] The Coalition Against Gun Violence (CAGV) and Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) both urge Congress to adopt nationally the law Washington, D.C. enacted at their behest. That law totally bans handguns, and requires that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled to prevent their being used in self-defense. Sarah Brady, HCI's chairperson, says: "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes" - not for self-defense. [2] In addition to a law requiring that householders keep firearms unloaded and disassembled, HCI seeks gun licensing under which self-defense would not be accepted as a ground for ownership. Only sportsmen would be allowed to own guns. [3] HCI's advice to victims is never physically resist rape or robbery: "give them what they want or run." [4] says "Pete" Shields, Sarah Brady's predecessor as head of HCI. 2. THE VERDICT OF AMERICAN CRIMINOLOGY That is not the kind of reasonable gun control most Americans support. Nor is it supported by the findings of criminologists. In 1978 the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) massively funded what was supposed to be the definitive study. Its senior authors began with the expectation that it would confirm the anti-gun view they admittedly shared. But they ended up admitting "The more deeply we have explored" that view, "the less plausible it has become." [5] Specifically, they rejected the view that ... homicide occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and ... [many homicides] would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports that view. [6] The researchers further concluded that gun ownership by law- abiding people neither causes nor promotes crime. [7] Criminological literature since the early 1970s increasingly reflects the growing doubt among criminologists that gun control laws of any kind can have more than the slightest impact on crime. [8] That literature establishes three central truths: - Violence results from basic socio-economic and cultural factors which cannot be touched by curbing the mere availability of any particular kind of weapon. [9] - Guns aren't going to disappear even if we ban them. There will always be enough illegal guns available to arm those who want to misuse them. - The dangerous people we most want to disarm will always be least affected by gun bans. Significantly, research has persuaded leading criminologists who once rejected these three facts to embrace them. [10] That includes the most important single researcher of the 1980s and `90s, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. He finds that "general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S." [11] Significantly, Prof. Kleck's findings to that effect have been hailed by both American and foreign criminologists and have received the American Society of Criminology's coveted Hindelang Award as "the most important contribution to criminology over the past several years." [12] 3. THE VALUE OF GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE Most important, Kleck's research utterly demolishes anti-gun, anti-self-defense mythology. HCI claims "The handgun owner seldom even gets the chance to use his weapon." [13] But Prof. Kleck finds that victims actually use handguns to defeat crimes three times more often than criminals misuse them committing crimes. [14] Nor is HCI correct to advise victims confronted by rapists and other felons "the best defense against injury is to put up no defense -- give them what they want or run." [15] Criminological data show that victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who submit, relying on the mercy of rapists or robbers. [16] (Running away or screaming is also far more dangerous and far less effective than resisting with a gun.) [17] 4. DEFEAT CRIME BY PERMITTING ARMED SELF-DEFENSE Laws intended to disarm true criminals and the irresponsible are sensible, though one must realistically recognize that we cannot disarm anyone who is determined to have a gun, as many criminals are. Laws aimed at disarming law-abiding, responsible people are not merely useless but also counter- productive. Instead, we should be emulating Israel's policy of issuing permits to carry concealed firearms to every law- abiding, responsible, trained citizen who applies so as to maximize the likelihood that there will be armed people available to counteract violence wherever it appears. The affirmative benefits of Israel's policy are clear and easily transferable to this country. As one American criminologist has noted, Israel easily grants applicants a handgun "permit [which] allows the handgun to be carried concealed on the person, a practice which Israel strongly encourages, contrary to American policy which severely restricts it. Massacres in which dozens of unarmed victims are mowed down before police can arrive are inconceivable to Israelis who note what occurred at a Jerusalem cafe some weeks before the California MacDonalds massacre: three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them. [18] Gun ban advocates must admit that Israel and Switzerland -- here any law abiding applicant can obtain such a license to carry -- both "report negligible deaths by handguns." [19] Several of the United States -- where concealed carry licenses are reasonably available -- also have positive experience. For example, the State of Connecticut (whose law since 1969 has required permits to be issued just like drivers' licenses) has less total population than the City of Los Angeles, yet it has issued more than 110,000 concealed carry licenses - one for every 25 residents. Connecticut's violent crime and homicide rates are far lower than are Los Angeles'. Similar situations exist in the other states in which licenses are reasonably available, to wit: Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, West Virginia, Utah, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Wyoming and Florida. All have very low crime rates and many concealed carry licenses issued to their citizens. (Contrast that with such places as the District of Columbia, New York City, Chicago and others with very few concealed carry licenses and very high crime rates.) In Florida, any citizen who can pass a criminal and mental background check, and who will take four hours of training in firearms safety and usage, can get a license valid for three years. According to the latest available figures from the Division of Licensing of the Florida Department of State, 140,069 licenses were issued (39,499 being renewals) out of 145,907 applications received between October 1, 1987 and December 30, 1992. Of licenses denied, 504 were denied because of "criminal history", the rest being denied because of "incomplete application" or other administrative reasons which are not clear from the statistics provided.) Only 89 of these licenses were subsequently revoked for any crime at all, 15 being revoked for a crime involving a firearm. That is only one- one-hundredth of one percent involving a firearm -- and many or most of those involved mere error rather than a real crime. That is to say, the licensee carried the gun into an area where it was not allowed (a courthouse or airport) either because they thought the permit allowed them to do so or because they forgot they had it with them. The Florida statistics are far and away the most complete. But there are others as well: State of Washington, the state Firearms License Bureau reports that as of October, 1991 (their latest available figure) a total of 198,163 licenses to carry handguns concealed were outstanding. Based on Washington's 1990 population of 4,866,692 this is one license for every 25.7 residents. Indiana: Indiana State Police report they currently had outstanding 220,623 permits to carry handguns concealed. Based on Indiana's 1990 population of 5,544,159 this is one license for every 25 residents. Georgia: There is no state-wide data base. The Fulton County (Atlanta) court clerk in charge of issuance in that county estimates the number of outstanding permits to carry handguns concealed at 190,800 state-wide. Based on Georgia's 1990 population of 6,478,216, this is one license for every 34 residents. New Hampshire: There is no state-wide data base. The Department of Safety estimates the number state-wide is 80,000. Based on New Hampshire's 1990 population of 1,109,252 this is one license for every 13.9 residents. Pennsylvania had 362,142 concealed carry licenses outstanding as of January, 1992. That is about one permit for every 33 Pennsylvanians. 5. AVAILABILITY OF CONCEALED CARRY LICENSES REDUCES CRIME In 1986, when Florida was attempting to reform its concealed carry license laws, gun-control supporters in the legislature vociferously asserted that enormous bloodshed would occur and that Florida would become the "Gunshine State." "Today, those same critics have admitted that they were wrong, and that they regret the harm done to Florida's reputation by the histrionic campaign against carry reform. Indeed, while the murder rate has risen 14 percent nationally from 1986 to 1991, it has fallen 20 percent in Florida. The state's total murder rate has 36 percent higher than the U.S. murder rate in 1986, and is now 4 percent below the national average. In the same period, robbery rose 9 percent in Florida, and 21 percent nationally."[20] 6. VICTIM DISARMAMENT (GUN CONTROL) KILLS Dr. Suzanna Gratia, survivor of the Killeen, Texas, massacre in which her mother and father were killed, says: "Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family! That's the only thing that cotton pickin' law did! OK! Understand that! That's ...that's so important!" [21] 7. CALIFORNIA PRACTICES VICTIM DISARMAMENT Despite a (California) Constitutional guaranty that the right of self-defense is inalienable, [22] and a statutory mandate to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons to non-criminal, mentally healthy citizens, [23] California's performance in this regard is dismal. There is only one license for every 794 Californians. Under Pen. C. Sec. 12050, licenses to carry concealed firearms are supposed to be available to every applicant who has both good character and "good cause." Yet from 1974 until late in 1992 (when it issued one to Chief Willie Williams) the LAPD had not issued a single license. San Francisco has only eleven licenses among a population of 733,300. Nearly as bad, Santa Clara County has only 137 (1,430,400 pop.), Orange only 244 (2,261,100 pop.), and Alameda only 151 (1,242,400 pop.). It is important to note that California counties with the highest crime rates are those with the fewest licenses to carry concealed weapons: 1.50, 9.58, 10.79 and 12.15 per 100,000 population, respectively. Contrast those four (counties with the State's highest crime rates and the fewest licenses per capita) with the State's four counties having the most per capita licenses and the lowest crime rates: 2,257.14, 2,403.30, 3,000.00 and 3,083.33 per 100,000 population. While there may be other factors impacting the California county figures, it is undeniable in a state-by-state comparison that those jurisdictions with the most onerous gun laws also have the highest crime rates and, conversely, those with the least-burdensome gun laws have the lowest rates of crime. 8. INDIVIDUALS MUST PROVIDE THEIR OWN PROTECTION It is well-settled in American law that the police have no general duty to protect individual citizens. "It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent." [24] In the holding of the leading case in this field, currently the law of the land, the Court said it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [25] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.[26] Many states, including California, have gone further yet to firmly establish the principle that the police are not generally obligated to protect individual citizens, to wit: California's Government Code states, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." [27] CONCLUSION It is important to note something we have learned over the years, most recently from the Florida experience in reforming their concealed carry license laws: while armed citizens can and do intervene to prevent violent crime, the larger and even more beneficial effect is that of general deterrence. Criminals, knowing that licenses to carry concealed weapons are reasonably available, and that a significant percentage of law- abiding citizens do indeed carry, but not knowing which among any group actually is armed, tend to focus their criminal assaults elsewhere. (It is felt that this effect is responsible for the unfortunate recent wave of assaults against Florida tourists, because criminals know that they, among all people in Florida, will not be armed and capable of effectively resisting.) California constitutionally guarantees its citizens the right to protect themselves, but de facto denies them the ability to effectively do so by making concealed carry licenses unreasonably difficult to obtain. California must reform these laws to permit its law-abiding citizens to reasonably obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. Without that, predators will continue to devastate our population and disarmed victims will be powerless to resist. --------------- [1] "The need that some homeowners and shopkeepers believe they have for weapons to defend themselves", says the WASHINGTON POST, represents "the worst instincts in the human character." Editorial: "Guns and the Civilizing Process", Sept. 26, 1972. Ramsey Clark denounces gun ownership for personal self-defense as "anarchy, not order under law - a jungle where each relies on himself for survival" CRIME IN AMERICA, p. 88. The Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church founded, and still sponsors, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (now renamed the Coalition Against Gun Violence). The Methodist Board of Church and Society teaches that it is a woman's Christian duty to submit to rape rather than to do anything that might imperil her rapist's life. In an official publication, its editor rhetorically poses the question "Is the Robber My Brother." He answers "yes" for, though the burglary victim or the "woman accosted in the park by a rapist is [not] likely to consider the violator to be a neighbor whose safety is of immediate concern***[c]riminals are members of the larger community no less than are others. As such they are our neighbors or, as Jesus put it, our brothers..." Brockway, "But the Bible Doesn't Mention Pistols", May, 1977 ENGAGE-SOCIAL ACTION FORUM. The language quoted is from pp. 39-40 of this issue which has been published as a separate pamphlet by the Methodist Board of Church and Society under the title HANDGUNS IN THE UNITED STATES. See also Braucher, "Gun Lunatics Silence [the] Sounds of Civilization" and "Handgun Nuts are Just That -- Really Nuts", MIAMI HERALD, July 19,1982 and Oct. 29, 1981, Ellison, "Fear Not Your Enemies", HEAVY METAL. Mar., 1981. [2] Interview in TAMPA TRIBUNE Oct. 21, 1993: Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive." Compare Prof. Morris Janowitz, "I see no reason ... why anyone is a democracy should own a weapon." and Illinois gun control organization founder Prof. Robert Replogle (of the U. of Chicago) "The only legitimate use of a handgun that I can understand is for target shooting." (From, respectively: "The Gun Under Fire", TIME, June 21, 1968 at 17 and Handgun Crime Control Hearings, 1975-6 Senate Judiciary Committee [Subcommittee re Juvenile Delinquency] Oversight of the 1968 Gun Control Act, v. II at 1974; emphasis added.) [3] Eckholm, "A Little Control, A Lot of Guns", N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 15, 1993, quoting Sarah Brady). Of course, the LOS ANGELES TIMES agrees. Editorial, Oct. 22, 1993. So does the Coalition Against Gun Violence -- which also seeks the banning and confiscation of all handguns. One CAGV member, the Presbyterian Church USA, explains that it does not seek to ban long guns for it deems that they will be used for sport. Handguns, however, are to be banned because they are used for self-defense. The Presbyterian "General Assembly has declared in the context of handgun control that it is opposed to `the killing of anyone, anywhere, for any reason.'" Testimony of Presbyterian representative; 1985-6 Hearings on Legislation to Modify the 1968 Gun Control Act, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime; v. I at 128; emphasis added. [4] Shields, Nelson "Pete", GUNS DON'T DIE, PEOPLE DO 124-5 [1981]. [5] J. Wright, P. Rossi, K. Daly, UNDER THE GUN: WEAPONS, CRIME AND VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES (N.Y., Aldine: 1983) chapter 14, page 319ff.: "The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared.... [e.g.] 5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become."*** "One of the NRA's favorite aphorisms is that `if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.' There is more truth to this point than the sophisticated liberal is usually willing to admit."*** "American progressivism has always taken a strong and justifiable pride in it's cultural pluralism, it's belief that minority or `deviant' cultures and values have intrinsic legitimacy and are therefore to be at least tolerated if not nourished, and certainly not be suppressed. Progressives have embraced the legitimacy of many subcultures in the past, including tolerance for a vast heterogeneity of religious beliefs, regional diversities, a belated recognition of American Indians, and tolerance for immigrant peoples. And more recently, progressives have hastened to affirm the legitimacy of black culture, Hispanic culture, youth culture, homosexuals (and, for that matter, nearly every other subculture that has pressed it's claim for recognition.) A critical issue in modern America is whether the doctrine of cultural pluralism should or should not be extended to cover the members of the gun subculture." [6] J. Wright, P. Rossi & K. Daly, WEAPONS, CRIME AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH AGENDA (Washington, D.C., Gov't. Print. Off.: 1981) - Executive Summary at p. 2, emphasis added. [7] See, e.g. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control", THE PUBLIC INTEREST (v. 91; Spring, 1988). [8] See, e.g. Danto, "Firearms and Their Role in Homicide and Suicide" 1 LIFE THREATENING BEHAVIOR 10 (1971); C. Greenwood, FIREARMS CONTROL: A STUDY OF FIREARMS CONTROL AND ARMED CRIME IN ENGLAND AND WALES (1972); Murray, "Handguns, Gun Control Law and Firearm Violence", 23 SOCIAL PROBLEMS 81 (1975); Bruce-Briggs, "The Great American Gun War", Fall, 1976, THE PUBLIC INTEREST; Kaplan, "Controlling Firearms" 28 CLEVE. ST. L. REV. 1 (1977); Danto, "Firearms and Violence", 5 INT'L. J. OFFENDER THER. 135 (1979); Kleck, "Capital Punishment, Gun Ownership and Homicide", 84 AM. J. SOC. 882 (1979); Lizotte and Bordua, "Firearms Ownership for Sport and Protection: Two Divergent Models", 45 AM. SOC. REV. (1980); Kessler, "Enforcement Problems of Gun Control: A Victimless Crimes Analysis", 16 CRIM. L. BULL. 131 (1980); Lizotte, Bordua and White, "Firearms Ownership for Sport and Protection: Two Not So Divergent Models", 46 AM. SOC. REV. 499 (1981); Kaplan, "The Wisdom of Gun Prohibition" 455 ANNALS OF THE AMER. ACAD. OF POL. & SOC. SCI. 11 (1981); Moore, "The Bird in Hand: A Feasible Strategy for Gun Control" 2 J. POLICY AN. & MANGMNT. 185 (1983); Lizotte, "The Costs of Using Gun Control to Reduce Homicide" 62 BULL. N.Y. ACAD. MED. 539 (1986); Eskridge, "Zero-Order Inverse Correlations Between Crimes of Violence and Hunting Licenses in the United States", 71 SOCIOLOGY & SOCIAL RESEARCH 55 (1986); Stell "Guns, Politics and Reason", 9 J. AM. CULTURE 71 (1986); Bordua, "Firearms Ownership and Violent Crime: A Comparison of Illinois Counties", in J. Byrne and R. Sampson (ed.) THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF CRIME (1986); Dixon, "Gun Ownership and the `Southern Subculture of Violence'", 93 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 383 (1987), Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control, 91 PUBLIC INTEREST 23 (1988); Toch, "Research and Policy: The Case of Gun Control" and Turner & Leyens, "The Weapons Effect Revisited: The Effects of Firearms on Aggressive Behavior" -- both in P. Suedfeld & P. Tetlock, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL ADVOCACY (NY Hemisphere Press, 1990); Mundt, "Gun Control and Rates of Firearms Violence in Canada and the United States" CANADIAN J. OF CRIMINOLOGY, Jan. 1990; Rich, et al. "Guns and Suicide: Possible Effects of Some Specific Legislation" 147 AM. J. PSYCHI. 342 (1990); McDowall D, Loftin C, Wiersma, B. Preventive effects of mandatory sentencing laws for gun crimes. In: Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, August 18-22, 1991. Atlanta: American Statistical Association, 1992: 87-94; Gary Kleck, POINT BLANK: GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA (N.Y., Aldine, 1991); Kleck & (Karen) McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence, 69 SOCIAL FORCES 1-21 (1991), Kleck and DeLone, "Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery", 9 J. QUANT. CRIMIN. 55-81 (1993) and Kleck & Patterson, "The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on City Violence Rates", 9 J. QUANT. CRIMIN. 249-87 (1993). [9] The mythology that the lower crime and homicide rates in other nations results from stricter gun laws is demolished by David Kopel in THE SAMURAI, THE MOUNTIE, AND THE COWBOY: SHOULD AMERICA ADOPT THE GUN CONTROL OF OTHER DEMOCRACIES? (Prometheus 1992) -- a book which won the 1992 International Criminology award of the American Society of Criminology. [10] Examples include: Prof. Brandon Centerwall, School of Public Health, University of Washington: "If you are surprised by my findings, so am I. I did not begin this research with any intent to `exonerate' handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources." Centerwall, "Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980", AMERICAN JOURNAL of EPIDEMIOLOGY v. 134 pp. 1245-65. Professor Hans Toch of the School of Criminology at the State University of New York (Albany) has recently noted that in 1969 he participated in and fully endorsed the Eisenhower Commission's "conclusion `that the heart of any effective national firearms policy for the United States must be to reduce the availability of the [handgun, the] firearm that contributes most to violence.... [R]educing the availability of the handgun WILL reduce firearms violence." (Italics by the Commission.) But, Prof. Toch continues, subsequent research has progressively undermined this. Though violence is primarily a male phenomenon, "rates of male firearms ownership tend to be inversely correlated with violent crime rates, a curious fact if firearms stimulate aggression. It is hard to explain that where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest." This undercuts the Eisenhower Commission's view that that gun ownership promotes crime. Toch further notes that in contrast to male ownership, women's gun ownership is very low where crime rates are low, but high where there is much crime. But "This does not imply that urban women are responsible for the urban crime problem" writes Professor Toch; rather "it demonstrates that when violent crimes are high, women arm themselves for protection." Moreover, Professor Toch sees the rationality of women arming themselves, because armed self-defense works: "when used for protection firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression." (Professor Toch's comments appear in his paper, "Research and Policy: The Case of Gun Control", in PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL POLICY. edited by Peter Sutfeld and Philip Tetlock (NY Hemisphere, 1992). Another distinguished criminologist is Professor Ted Robert Gurr who was a key staff member of the anti-gun 1960s Eisenhower Commission. In each decade since it's research reports were published, as they have become obsolete through later research, Professor Gurr has issued up-dated editions under the title VIOLENCE IN AMERICA. His Introduction to the latest (1989) up-date summarizes his own present views on gun control: "Americans looking for simple solutions to high crime rates and to political assassinations have repeatedly proposed and sometimes imposed restrictions on gun ownership. Since about two-thirds of murders and all recent assassinations have been committed with guns, the argument goes, dry up the guns and violence will decline. In a country with an estimated stock of 60 million handguns and more than 100 million long guns, not even the most Draconian policies could remove guns from the hands of people who were determined to get and keep them. Those determined gun owners include far more citizens concerned about defending themselves and their homes than predatory criminals. The irony of most gun control proposals is that they would criminalize much of the citizenry but have only marginal effects on professional criminals. "Moreover, an overemphasis on such proposals diverts attention from the kinds of conditions that are responsible for much of our crime, such as persisting poverty for the black underclass and some whites and Hispanics; the impact of post- industrial transition on economic opportunity for working-class youths; and the shortage of prison facilities that makes it difficult to keep high risk, repeat offenders off the streets." Admittedly, if no one had guns, assaults carried out with less deadly weapons "and modern medicine would save more of the victims. But we must [also consider that] ... guns can be an effective defense. [UCLA historian Roger] McGrath's historical evidence [from the 19th Century] shows that widespread gun ownership deterred [burglary and robbery] while simultaneously making brawls more deadly. Modern studies, summarized by Kates, also show that widespread gun ownership deters crime. Surveys sponsored by both pro- and anti-gun groups show that roughly three-quarters of a million private gun owning citizens report using weapons in self- defense [annually], while convicted robbers and burglars report that they are deterred when they think their potential targets are armed." [11] From a recent presentation by Kleck to the National Academy of Sciences: "Up until about 1976 or so, there was little reliable scholarly information on the link between violence and weaponry. When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most academics, I was a believer in the "anti-gun" thesis, i.e. the idea the gun availability has a net positive effect on the frequency and/or seriousness of violent acts. It seemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to be empirically tested. However, as a modest body of reliable evidence accumulated, many of the most able specialists in this area shifted from the "anti-gun" position to a more skeptical stance, in which it was negatively argued that the best available evidence does not convincingly or consistently support the anti-gun position. This is not the same as saying we know the anti-gun position to be wrong, but rather that there is no strong case for it being correct. The most prominent representatives of the skeptic position would be James Wright and Peter Rossi, authors of the best scholarly review of the literature [UNDER THE GUN]. "Evidence reported since [UNDER THE GUN] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence - it has many effects on the liklihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence- increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely cancelling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero. The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse." [12] See reviews of G. Kleck, POINT BLANK: GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA (1991) including: Kessler, Book Review, 2 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMIN. 1187 (1992), Mauser, "Gun Control in the United States," 3 CRIMINAL LAW FORUM pp. 147-159 (1992) Hawley, Book Review, 71 SOCIAL FORCES 548 (1992) and Lizotte, Book Review, May, 1993 CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY. [13] GUNS DON'T DIE, PEOPLE DO (N.Y., Arbor: 1981) by then- Handgun Control, Inc. Chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields 49 (emphasis in original). [14] Kleck & DeLone, "Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery", 9 J. QUANT. CRIMIN. 55-81 (1993), Kates, "The Value of Civilian Arms Possession as Deterrent to Crime or Defense Against Crime", 18 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW 113 (1991), G. Kleck, POINT BLANK: GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA (N.Y., Aldine, 1991), Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Use of Force in the Private Sector", 35 SOCIAL PROBLEMS 1 (1988). [15] GUNS DON'T DIE, PEOPLE DO, by then-Handgun Control, Inc. Chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields at p. 124-5 (1981). [16] Kleck & DeLone, "Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery", 9 J. QUANT. CRIMIN. 55-81 (1993), Kates, "The Value of Civilian Arms Possession as Deterrent to Crime or Defense Against Crime", 18 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RIMINAL LAW 113 (1991), G. Kleck, POINT BLANK: GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA (N.Y., Aldine, 1991), Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Use of Force in the Private Sector", 35 SOCIAL PROBLEMS 1 (1988). [17] Ullman & Knight, "Sequential Analysis of Sexual Assaults", a paper delivered at the 1993 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, October 29, 1993. [18] D. Kates, "Firearms and Violence: Old Premises, New Research" in T. Gurr (ed.) VIOLENCE IN AMERICA (1989). [19] Shetky, DH. Children and Handguns: A Public Health Concern 1985, Am. J. Dis. Child. 139: 229-231. [20] The Violence of Gun Control, Kopel, David B., Policy Review: The Flagship Publication of The Heritage Foundation, Winter, 1993. [21] Testimony in Missouri House of Representatives in favor of HB-1720, a bill that would permit issuance of licenses to carry concealed weapons. March, 1991. [22] Inalienable Rights: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. CA Const, Art. 1, Sect. 1 [23] CA Pen. C. Sect. 12050 [24] P. A. Kasler, SELF-RELIANCE FOR SELF-PROTECTION (Sonoma, CA, Mesquite Mountain Press, 1991) [25] Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). [26] See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982). [27] CA Gvt. C. Sects. 821, 845, and 846. -- I don't tell Netcom how to run their business and they don't tell me what to think or write ....... Steve Fischer/Atlanta, GA ===================================================================== "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Johnson