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