Myth #3 "There is an epidemic of gun violence"
Even their claim of an "epidemic" of violence is false. That claim, like so many
other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that few think to
question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates have been stable
to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved
with illicit drug trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city
contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the
other paragons of gun control.[2]
The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and
abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty is so severe that crime
has become a rational career choice for those with no hope of decent job opportunities.[4]
Myth #4 "Guns cause violence"
Homicide
For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such
gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is
227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership
has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than
7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average.[6]
If the "guns-cause-violence" theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy
purchase" source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of
9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide
rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South
Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district
with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California
12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The "guns-cause-violence" and "guns exacerbate
violence" theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption,
media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.
Accidents
National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been falling steadily
since the beginning of this century and now hover at an all time low. This means
that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur annually, a far cry from the familiar
false imagery of "thousands of innocent children."[8]
Suicide
Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide
from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust,
etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates.[3] People
who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of
suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease
gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?
Myth #5 The "Friends and Family" fallacy
It is common for the "public health" advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders
are of "friends and family." The medical literature includes many such false claims,
that "most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens prior to their pulling
the trigger"[9 ]and "most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people,
but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection."[10]
Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority
of homicides,[11] but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide
requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the decedent. That dueling
drug dealers are acquainted does not make them "friends." Over three-quarters of
murderers have long histories of violence against not only their enemies and other
"acquaintances," but also against their relatives.[12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors
have no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic
is not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of violence."[16]
The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious
aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them. This
reality belies the imagery of "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of
passion simply because a gun was present "in the home."
Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as
an intruder"
To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a
gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long-discredited claim:
"a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."[17]
This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of
the anti-self-defense lobby.
The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries
prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar
or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results
in the death of the predator.[3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy,
that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand-fold.
Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of
law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest
measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the
medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65
lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.[2]
Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times,"[18] but he persisted
in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause"
and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators
of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.
Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug
addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study
group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when
Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would
want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even
believe his own studies.
Myth #7 "The costs of gun violence are high"
The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately $1.5-billion
per year[20]- less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual health care costs.
To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely
include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings" or "years of productive life lost"
- assuming that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive
as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims
of $20-billion or more in "costs."[20] One recent study went so far as to claim the
"costs" of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence.[21]
What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who strayed into
gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds
of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their customers.[22,23] In one
study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests
for 11 offenses.[23] These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering,
but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension
and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24] Because the anti-self-defense
lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of "costs," we are forced to notice
that, in cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators
and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order
of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns. Those annual
cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because
the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved,
injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns.
Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net
benefit to our society. Other benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination
that accompany protective gun ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no
competent research that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult
(whether by bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence.
It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who
are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun
laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before
violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs
more - not fewer - lives.
Myth #8 "Gun control will keep guns 'off the street' "
Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely
ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning, wishful thinking
will cause these criminals to honor additional gun laws.
Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an
understandable lapse, since even police-state tactics cannot effectively enforce
gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a country whose human rights record we
dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25]
Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people
who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments in the
path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people -
especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest
risk.
If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications.
Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves
lives.
What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally-competent, law-abiding citizen access
to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns.[26,27]
Brady I and Brady II
The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential felons"[28] [emphasis
added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in the first month of the Brady Law.
Several jurisdictions have reviewed the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted
in the initial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal[29]
of the "success" of the Brady Law.
The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other jurisdictions have
shown that almost every one of those "potential" felons were not felons or otherwise
disqualified from gun ownership. Many were innocents whose names were similar to
felons. Misdemeanor traffic convictions, citations for fishing without a license,
and failure to license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer
tag that labeled the others as "potential" felons.[30] In transparent "governmentese,"
BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the Brady Law has] been a success,
even though we don't have a whole lot of numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect."[31]
Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about 6.3%
of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated studies showing
how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions. A minuscule number of actual
felons has been identified by Brady Law background checks, but the US Department
of Justice is unable to identify even one prosecution of those felons.[32 ] In such
circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit
at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are
purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market, stolen
guns, or from similar non-retail sources.[28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.'s
Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their
symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence.
Residential gun dealers
The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers, pejoratively
named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of
a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted by data from the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers
had no inventory and sold no guns at all.[33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before
enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the
large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to
FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at
gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers.
To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became,
at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby
claim BATF does not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created.
Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive
- unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that
gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent.
Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun
dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable - though
admittedly more difficult - to target the real source of crime guns? It is time to
admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than
1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort
should focus on targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally
important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting
attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the inner-city youth that
are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence
in our society.
Myth #9 "Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection"
Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police
to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record
than the police.[3] About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about
2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun
user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening
in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.
We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple
truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves and their
communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of the gun control lobby
has come true.
"Treat cars like guns"
Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model of gun
ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely applied. It is routinely
overlooked that no license or registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind
of automobile on private property. No proof of "need" is required for automobile
registration or drivers' licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may
be driven on any public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and
credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age
restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse -
that is regulated.
Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no "arsenal
permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle racing enthusiasts.
Neither has anyone suggested that automobile manufacturers be sued when automobiles
are frequently misused by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all
manner of crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because
they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit,
even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the national
speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the usual response. So too do guns have
good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good Americans every year.
Progressive reform
Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile model of gun
ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and enhance public safety.
Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is possible. Where state laws have
been reformed to license and train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for
protection, violence and homicide have fallen.[11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who
abhor guns benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance
who is carrying a concealed weapon.
Fear mongering and the gun control lobby
In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self-protection, the anti-self-defense
lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential
family arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities
would collapse, and that many innocent people would be killed[26,27] In Florida,
the anti-self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the streets of "Dodge
City East," the "Gunshine State" --- but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda,
imaginative imagery, or political histrionics. We can examine the data.
Data, not histrionics
One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed laws
to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their homes.[26,27]
In those states crime rates are lower for every category of crime indexed by the
FBI Uniform Crime Reports.[11] Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each
40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are
10% lower.[11] The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of
the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact, the data suggest that,
providing they are in the hands of good citizens, more guns "on the street" offer
a considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct
to the concept of community policing.
As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent person had
been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years post-reform. Of the
188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not one of
those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever.[27] In opposing reform,
fear is often expressed that "everyone would be packing guns," but, after reform,
most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified
citizens.[27]
Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the observed reality
was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators fear an unpredictable encounter
with an armed citizen even more than they fear apprehension by police[34] or fear
our timid and porous criminal justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists
are targeted by predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens,
tourists are unarmed.
Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if it saves
only one lifeI." There have been matched state pair analyses, crime trend studies,
and California county-by-county research[27] demonstrating that licensing law-abiding,
mentally-competent adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their
homes saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving
lives is truly their motivation.
The right
Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail to note
that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are inappropriate to a constitutional
right (gun ownership and use). Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms.[35] It is specifically the
"weapons of war" - militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second
Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen
militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the Supreme Court
has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that right, is reminiscent
of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before
those rights became politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken
over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed
to African-Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?
Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and bear arms,
there are Ninth,[36] Tenth,[35] and Fourteenth Amendment,[37] as well as "natural
right"[38] guarantees to self-protection.
Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court case
law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five support the individual
right view and only four support the "collective right only" view[39] (and three
of these four are authored or co-authored by employees of the antiselfdefense lobby).
One would never guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations
of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist
view is also evident from the fact that their "collective right only" theory is exclusively
an invention of the twentieth century "gun control" debate - a concept of which neither
the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling.
California and Concealed Weapons
California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest
rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder and the counties
with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the lowest rates of murder.[27]
It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable discretion
to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of Concealed Weapon Licenses.
Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of that discretion is common. The result?
In many jurisdictions only the affluent and politically connected are issued such
licenses. In California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even
though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence.
Conclusion
The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do not schedule
their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police cannot be where they
are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They can only arrive later to count
the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the predators.
There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and crime trend
studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens to protect themselves
outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The anti-self defense lobby advances
many proposals in hopes that it will "save only one life." Reform of concealed carry
laws is a policy that saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported
by the gun control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest.
[1] Leape LL. "Error in Medicine." JAMA. 1994; 272(23): 1851-57.
[2] Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer
Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.
[3] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
1991.
[4] Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. "Violence in America - Effective Solutions."
Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. Spring 1995, forthcoming.
[5] Fingerhut LA, Ingram DD, Feldman JJ. "Firearm Homicide Among Black Teenage Males
in Metropolitan Counties: Comparison of Death Rates in Two Periods, 1983 through
1985 and 1987 through 1989." JAMA. 1992; 267:3054-8.
[6] Hammett M, Powell KE, O'Carroll PW, Clanton ST. "Homicide Surveillance - United
States, 1987 through 1989." MMWR. 41/SS-3. May 29,1992.
[7] FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1991. Washington DC: US
Government Printing Office. 1992
[8] National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council.
1993.
[9] Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G. "Reducing Firearm Injuries." Issues
in Science and Technology. Spring 1991: 73-9.
[10] Christoffel KK. "Towards Reducing Pediatric Injuries From Firearms: Charting
a Legislative and Regulatory Course." Pediatrics. 1992; 88:294-300.
[11] Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports
Crime in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1994.
Table 5.
[12] Dawson JB aand Langan PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics statisticians. "Murder
in Families." Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice.
1994. p. 5, Table 7.
[13] US Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988." Washington
DC: US Department of Justice. 1993.
[14] Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA: California Bureau
of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4.
[15] Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on Individual
Acts of Violence." Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1969. p 532.
[16] Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places:
A Prevention and Management Guide." Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993.
[17] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related
Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.
[18] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor
for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.
[19] Japenga A. "Gun Crazy." San Francisco Examiner. This World supplement. April
3, 1994. p. 7-13 at 11.
[20] Max W and Rice DP. "Shooting in the Dark: Estimating the Cost of Firearm Injuries."
Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85.
[21] Nieto M, Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. "Firearm-Related Violence in California:
Incidence and Economic Costs." Sacramento CA: California Research Bureau, California
State Library. October 1994.
[22] McGonigal MD, Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood PB. "Urban
Firearms Deaths: A Five-Year Perspective." J Trauma. 1993; 35(4): 532-36.
[23] Hutson HR, Anglin D, and Pratss MJ. "Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed
in Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles." N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 324-27.
[24] Zedlewski EW. Making Confinement Decisions - Research in Brief. Washington DC:
National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. July 1987.
[25] United Press. "China seizes 120,000 guns." October 21, 1994.
[26] Cramer C and Kopel D. Concealed Handgun Permits for Licensed Trained Citizens:
A Policy that is Saving Lives. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper #14-93.
1993.
[27] Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit
Laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994.
[28] Aborn R, President of Handgun Control Inc. Letter to the Editor. Washington
Post. September 30, 1994.
[29] Thomson Charles, Associate Director for Law Enforcement, Bureau of alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, Department of teh Treasury. Statement before the Subcommitttee
on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee of the Judiciary, US House of Representatives.
September 20, 1994.
[30] Halbrook SP. "Another Look at the Brady Law." Washington Post. October 8, 1994.
p A-18.
[31] Howlett D. "Jury Still Out on Success of the Bardy Law." USA Today. December
28, 1994. p A-2.
[32] Harris J, Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice. Statement to
the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, US Gouse
of Representatives concerning Federal Firearms Prosecutions. September 20, 1994.
[33] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, US Department of the Treasury. ATF
News.. Washington DC: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. FY-93-38. 1993.
[34] Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and
Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986.
[35] Suter EA, Morgan RE, Cottrol RJ, et al. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - A
Primer for Physicians." Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy. Spring 1995, forthcoming.
[36] Johnson NJ. "Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individual Right to Arms Viewed
through the Ninth Amendment." Rutgers Law Journal. Fall 1992; 24 (1): 1-81.
[37] Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal.
1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.;
[38] Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection." Constitutional
Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.
[39] Articles supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W. "The
Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms." Duke Law Journal. 1994; 43: 6.;
Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1992;
101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.; Scarry E. "War and the Social Contract:
The Right to Bear Arms." Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257-1316.; Williams
DL. "Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment"
Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.; Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment:
Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal. December
1991: 80; 309-61.; Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights as a Constitution" Yale Law Journal.
1991; 100 (5): 1131-1210.; Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" Yale Law
Journal. 1989; 99:637-659.; Kates D. "The Second Amendment: A Dialogue." Law and
Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:143.; Malcolm JL. Essay Review. George Washington
U. Law Review. 1986; 54: 452-464.; Fussner FS. Essay Review. Constitutional Commentary.
1986; 3: 582-8.; Shalhope RE. "The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic." Law and
Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:125-141.; Halbrook S. "What the Framers Intended:
A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment." Law and Contemporary Problems.
1986; 49:151-162.; Kates D. "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the
Second Amendment." Michigan Law Review. 1983; 82:203-73. Halbrook S. "The Right to
Bear Arms in the First State Bills of Rights: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont,
and Massachusetts." Vermont Law Review 1985; 10: 255-320.; Halbrook S. "The Right
of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second
Amendment." Valparaiso Law Review. 1991; 26:131-207.; Tahmassebi SB. "Gun Control
and Racism." George Mason Univ. Civil Rights Law Journal. Winter 1991; 2(1):67-99.;
Reynolds. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Tennessee Constitution." Tennessee
Law Review. Winter 1994; 61:2. Bordenet TM. "The Right to Possess Arms: the Intent
of the Framers of the Second Amendment." U.W.L.A. L. Review. 1990; 21:1.-30.; Moncure
T. "Who is the Militia - The Virginia Ratifying Convention and the Right to Bear
Arms." Lincoln Law Review. 1990; 19:1-25.; Lund N. "The Second Amendment, Political
Liberty and the Right to Self-Preservation." Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.;
Morgan E "Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional." American Journal
of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.; Dowlut, R. "Federal and State Constitutional
Guarantees to Arms." Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.; Halbrook SP. "Encroachments
of the Crown on the Liberty of the Subject: Pre-Revolutionary Origins of the Second
Amendment." Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.; Hardy DT. "The Second Amendment
and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights." Journal of Law and Politics. Summer
1987; 4(1):1-62.; Hardy DT. "Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence
of the Second Amendment." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986; 9:559-638.;
Dowlut R. "The Current Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing Arms." Univ. Baltimore Law
Forum. 1984; 15:30-32.; Malcolm JL. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms:
The Common Law Tradition." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Winter 1983; 10(2):285-314.;
Dowlut R. "The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges
Reign?" Oklahoma Law Review. 1983; 36:65-105.; Caplan DI. "The Right of the Individual
to Keep and Bear Arms: A Recent Judicial Trend." Detroit College of Law Review. 1982;
789-823.; Halbrook SP. "To Keep and Bear 'Their Private Arms'" Northern Kentucky
Law Review. 1982; 10(1):13-39.; Gottlieb A. "Gun Ownership: A Constitutional Right."
Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.; Gardiner R. "To Preserve Liberty --
A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.;
Kluin KF. Note. "Gun Control: Is It A Legal and Effective Means of Controlling Firearms
in the United States?" Washburn Law Journal 1982; 21:244-264.; Halbrook S. "The Jurisprudence
of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments." George Mason U. Civil Rights Law Review.
1981; 4:1-69. Wagner JR. "Comment: Gun Control Legislation and the Intent of the
Second Amendment: To What Extent is there an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms?"
Villanova Law Review. 1992; 37:1407-1459. The following treatments in book form also
conclude that the individual right position is correct: Malcolm JL. To Keep and Bear
Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press. 1994.;
Cottrol R. Gun Control and the Constitution (3 volume set). New York City: Garland.
1993.; Cottrol R and Diamond R. "Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms" in Bodenhamer
D and Ely J. After 200 Years; The Bill of Rights in Modern America. Indiana U. Press.
1993.; Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court. Oxford U. Press. 1992.
(entry on the Second Amendment); Cramer CE. For the Defense of Themselves and the
State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers. 1994. Foner E and Garrity J. Reader's Companion
to American History. Houghton Mifflin. 1991. 477-78. (entry on "Guns and Gun Control");
Kates D. "Minimalist Interpretation of the Second Amendment" in E. Hickok (ed.),
The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Univ. Virginia Press.
1991.; Halbrook S. "The Original Understanding of the Second Amendment." in Hickok
E (editor) The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Charlottesville:
U. Press of Virginia. 1991. 117-129.; Young DE. The Origin of the Second Amendment.
Golden Oak Books. 1991.; Halbrook S. A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills
of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.; Levy LW. Original Intent
and the Framers' Constitution. Macmillan. 1988.; Hardy D. Origins and Development
of the Second Amendment. Blacksmith. 1986.; Levy LW, Karst KL, and Mahoney DJ. Encyclopedia
of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan. 1986. (entry on the Second Amendment);
Halbrook S. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque,
NM: U. New Mexico Press. 1984.; Marina. "Weapons, Technology and Legitimacy: The
Second Amendment in Global Perspective." and Halbrook S. "The Second Amendment as
a Phenomenon of Classical Political Philosophy." -- both in Kates D (ed.). Firearms
and Violence. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute. 1984.; U.S. 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. regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment:
Aynes RL. "On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal.
1993; 103:57-104.; The minority supporting a collective right only view: Ehrman K
and Henigan D. "The Second Amendment in the 20th Century: Have You Seen Your Militia
Lately?" Univ. Dayton LawJReview. 1989; 15:5-58 and Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and
the Second Amendment." Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. -- both
written by paid general counsel of Handgun Control, Inc.; Fields S. "Guns, Crime
and the Negligent Gun Owner." Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1): 141-162.
(article by non-lawyer lobbyist for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns); and
Spannaus W. "State Firearms Regulation and the Second Amendment." Hamline Law Review.
1983; 6:383-408. In addition, see: Beschle. "Reconsidering the Second Amendment:
Constitutional Protection for a Right of Security." Hamline Law Review. 1986; 9:69.
(conceding that the Amendment does guarantee a right of personal security, but arguing
that personal security can constitutionally be implemented by banning and confiscating
all guns). Though not in the legal literature, for arguably the most scholarly treatment
supporting the "collective right only" view, see: Cress LD. "An Armed Community:
The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms." J. Am. History 1984; 71:22-42.
[40] 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.
