Survey Research Unit: Gun Control
Assignment: Read the following sources carefully. Take a position that defends, challenges or qualifies the claim
that the United States needs stricter gun control laws to protect the American people.
Refer to the sources to support your position. Avoid mere plagiarism or summary. Your argument should be
central. The sources should defend or challenge this argument. Refer to the sources as Source A, Source B, etc.
Note: there are several other articles, cartoons, websites, resources on this topic on the LAHS libguide.
Source A: “Gun Control is Constitutional”
Source B: “Gun Crimes Hurt Children”
Source C: “Permits Should Be Required for Concealed Weapons”
Source D: “Background Checks at Gun Shows are Unnecessary”
Source E: “Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Gun Violence”
Source F: “Laws Permitting Concealed Weapons Ensure Public Safety”
Source G: Cartoon
Source H: Chart: Mass Shooters’ Weapons, 1982-2012
Source A
Blek, Charles L. "Gun Control Is Constitutional." Gun Control. Ed. Helen Cothran. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Our Second
Amendment." Human Rights (Fall 1999). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9
Mar. 2013.
As you read, consider the following questions:
1. According to Blek, what did the Supreme Court rule about the purpose of the Second Amendment in the Miller
case?
2. What example does the author provide to illustrate that the First Amendment's right to free speech is limited?
3. What federal agency is specifically prohibited from regulating firearms, according to Blek?
For too long, our elected officials have hidden behind the phrase "our Second Amendment rights" in order to defend
the status quo with regard to guns. Guns are not the root cause of violence; but their widespread usage dramatically
increases the lethality of the violence. The news channels overflow with the tragedies....
Clearly, these issues must be addressed. We must challenge and move beyond the mistaken belief that creating
responsible gun laws in some manner offends our constitutional rights.
Misinterpretation of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court discusses the purpose and the limit of the Second
Amendment and tells us that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness" of our state militia forces (our present day National Guard). The right to bear arms was
not extended to each and every individual, but rather was expressly limited to maintaining effective state militia.
The National Rifle Association's (NRA) continuous omission of the "well-regulated militia" language in its literature
speaks volumes. It even prompted former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger to comment: “It's the
simplest thing: a well-regulated militia. If the militia—which is what we now call the National Guard—essentially
has to be well-regulated, in heaven's name why shouldn't we regulate 14-, 15-, and 16-year old kids having
handguns or hoodlums having machine guns? I was raised on a farm, and we had guns around the house all the time.
So I'm not against guns, but the National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of
misrepresenting and misleading the public.”
The NRA uses our First Amendment right of freedom of speech to repeat their misinformed rhetoric. In comparing
First and Second Amendment rights, we all recognize that freedom of speech, as broadly as it is interpreted, still has
limitations. For example, we are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when none exists. However, if we
are to believe the NRA, the Second Amendment grants an unconditional right to individuals to possess arms. The
NRA's questionable analysis, prompted Erwin N. Griswold, former dean of Harvard Law School who served as U.S.
Solicitor General to comment: “…To assert that the Constitution is a barrier to reasonable gun laws, in the face of
the unanimous judgment of the federal courts to the contrary, exceeds the limits of principled advocacy. It is time for
the NRA and its followers in Congress to stop trying to twist the Second Amendment from a reasoned (if antiquated)
empowerment for a militia to a bulletproof personal right for anyone to wield deadly weaponry beyond legislative
control.”
History tells us that the Second Amendment is based on the colonists' fear of the military forces sent by King
George III to compel obedience to cruel and burdensome laws and taxes. Federalist James Madison drafted a Bill of
Rights for presentation at the first Congress. His draft of the Second Amendment was ultimately restructured into its
present form in order to place greater emphasis on the militia purpose in dealing with the right to keep and bear
arms. Ironically, the New Hampshire convention suggested far broader language—that being: "Congress shall never
disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion." It is indeed significant that our first Congress
rejected this broad language in order to adopt the present version with its more restrictive language.
The Correct Interpretation
Our federal appellate courts, in interpreting the application of our Second
Amendment, have created a well-settled principle of law—that the Second Amendment does not guarantee any
individual the unconditional right to own a handgun or to bear arms. Beginning with the decision in United States v.
Miller, the court held that a firearms statute is unconstitutional only if it adversely affects a state's ability to maintain
a militia. Numerous other cases uphold laws that regulate private ownership of firearms, such as Eckert v. City of
Philadelphia, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982) ("The right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United
States Constitution"); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971) ("There can be no serious claim to any
express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm"); and Quilici v. The Village of Morton Grove, 477
F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973), wherein the NRA attempted to challenge a handgun ban, and the U.S. Supreme Court, by
refusing to hear the case, allowed a lower appellate court ruling to stand that stated "there is no individual right to
keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment." The appellate courts agree—the Second Amendment is
completely compatible with responsible gun laws affecting the private possession of firearms. The logic involved in
these cases is clear and consistent; however, the NRA attempts to distort the true significance and meaning of the
Second Amendment....
Lethal Consumer Products
We must not allow the NRA's distortion of the Second Amendment to distract us
from the health and safety risks associated with gun violence. We experience tragedy upon inexcusable tragedy, but
fail to recognize firearms as the lethal consumer products that they are. Unfortunately, there are no federal agencies
to which we can turn for regulation of the gun industry. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has no
warrant to regulate firearm safety and is not empowered to protect us from the dangers of firearm use. The
Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency charged with overseeing the use and manufacture of most
household products, is specifically prohibited from regulating firearms in any way. Therefore, we must regulate
through legislation.
It is amazing that although we readily acknowledge that safety measures like automobile seatbelts save lives, we are
unable or unwilling to connect this same philosophy with the handgun. We all understand that an automobile not
only affects the driver but all who are within close proximity of the car. The same is true of a handgun. Therefore,
we should no longer allow any regulatory exceptions when it comes to these weapons.
When our policymakers are allowed to misuse the Second Amendment as a shield against supporting
responsible gun policy, what are the results? Well, the result is a 15-year old armed with a 50-round
magazine, opening fire at his Oregon high school in May 1998, shooting off the entire magazine in less than one
minute in the crowded school cafeteria, and killing four and injuring twenty. Simple math tells us if, at the very
least, we had laws limiting the capacity of magazines to ten rounds or less that it would have been physically
impossible for more than twenty people to have been injured or killed during his rampage. We now know that the
two young men responsible for the carnage [at Columbine High School] in Littleton, Colorado, in April 1999 had no
difficulty obtaining the high-capacity assault weapons that were used in their rampage.
A few weeks after the Littleton tragedy, I had an opportunity to talk with Tom Mauser, the father of Daniel Mauser,
one of the victims in the Littleton shootings. Tom described what happened to his son: "Daniel was in the school
library during the lunch period and was confronted with a Tek DC9 semi-automatic assault weapon with a 30-round
magazine. The assault weapon was pointed into Daniel's face and then exploded into action." When will we say
"Enough?" We must focus on policies that will reduce the lethality of gun violence rather than continuously lament
its deadly results.
Source B
Children's Defense Fund. "Gun Crimes Cause Serious Harm to Children." Guns and
Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from
"Protect Children, Not Guns 2010." 20 Aug. 2010: 1-18. Opposing Viewpoints In
Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.
The Children's Defense Fund, an American child advocacy and research group, works to protect every child's right
to become a healthy and productive adult.
Too many children in the United States are affected by gun violence in the form of death, non-fatal gun
injuries, or the emotional aftereffects. Recharged federal and state legislative action to strengthen gun
control and gun safety laws would certainly help reduce youth gun violence, but individuals, families, and
communities must also unite against the glamour of guns and offer positive alternatives toward purposeful
and honorable activities.
After almost two decades of reporting on youth gun violence, CDF's [Children's Defense Fund] latest installment of
Protect Children, Not Guns makes clear that our national obsession with guns continues to result in the senseless
and unnecessary loss of young lives. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that a total of
3,042 children and teens died by gunfire in 2007—a number nearly equal to the total number of U.S. combat deaths
in Iraq and four times the number of American combat fatalities in Afghanistan to date [2010]. Another 17,523
children and teens suffered non-fatal gun injuries in 2007 and the emotional aftermath that follows. In each case it
was a gun that ended or changed a young life forever.
Too Many Guns, Not Enough Gun Control
With over 280 million guns in civilian hands, the terrible truth is
that there is no place to hide from gun violence. Children and teens are not safe from gun violence at school, at
home, or anywhere else in America. A recent study found that rural and urban children and teens are equally likely
to die from firearm injuries. Young people in urban areas are more likely to be homicide victims while rural children
and teens are more likely to be victims of suicide or accidental shootings. The CDC estimates that nearly two
million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns.
The epidemic of gun violence is particularly acute among young black men. In 2007, for the first time, more black
than white children and teens were killed by gun violence. Black males 15 to 19 are more than five times as likely as
white males of the same age and more than twice as likely as Hispanic males to be killed by firearms. They also are
at substantially greater risk of being injured by gun violence than their white and Hispanic peers. Although their
physical injuries heal, the emotional scars typically go untreated, leaving thousands of young survivors of gun
violence in a hazy fog of trauma similar to that of soldiers returning from combat.
Among children and teens, firearm deaths are more likely to be homicides.
What will it take for us to stop this senseless loss of young lives? Common sense gun laws can make a difference.
States with higher rates of gun ownership and weak gun control laws have the highest rates of firearm deaths of
people of all ages. Although polls show that the majority of Americans favor common sense gun control laws that
would stem the tide of gun violence, federal and state legislative reform has been difficult to achieve. We need
political leaders who will protect our children by enacting legislation to limit the number of guns in our
communities, control who can obtain firearms, and ensure that guns in the home are stored safely and securely.
But the responsibility to keep our children safe does not end here. Individuals and families must remove guns from
their homes, mobilize community support to protect children from gun violence, stress nonviolent values and
conflict resolution, refuse to buy or use products for children and teens that glamorize violence, and provide children
and teens positive alternatives to the streets where they can feel safe and protected.
We must act to end the culture of violence that desensitizes us—young and old—to the value of life. We cannot
allow these shots to go unheard. Our children and our society deserve more.
 Gunfire deaths among children and teens declined by nearly five percent between 2006 and 2007: 142
fewer children and teens died from firearms in 2007 than 2006. This includes 64 fewer homicides, 80 fewer




suicides, and 16 fewer accidental firearm deaths. Deaths classified as "unknown" increased by 18 between
2006 and 2007.
The number of children and teens killed by guns in 2007 would fill more than 122 public school classrooms
of 25 students each. The number of preschoolers killed by firearms in 2007 (85) surpassed the number of
law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty (57).
Among children and teens, firearm deaths are more likely to be homicides. More than 70 percent of the
firearm deaths of children and teens in 2007 were homicides; 22 percent were suicides. Among adults the
trend is the exact opposite: 60 percent of firearm deaths of adults in 2007 were suicides while 38 percent
were homicides.
Ninety-five percent of firearm deaths of young people occurred among children and teens 10 to 19 years
old. In fact, more 10- to 19-year-olds die from gunshot wounds than from any other cause except motor
vehicle accidents.
Children and teens killed by firearms are more likely to be boys (90 percent). Boys ages 15 to 19 are almost
10 times as likely as girls that age to commit suicide with a firearm....
Common Sense Gun Safety Measures
Stronger federal legislation could help protect more children from
the all too often fatal effects of gun violence. Measures that would help include:
Require consumer safety standards and childproof safety features for all firearms. All guns in this country should be
childproof. One-third of all households with children have at least one firearm in the home. It is estimated that
nearly two million children live in homes with an unlocked and loaded firearm. Federal law is silent on gun related
consumer safety standards and child access prevention laws. In fact, the production and manufacture of firearms is
exempt from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. As a result, many handguns do not contain
easily-installed life-saving safety features. Only 27 states and the District of Columbia have attempted to keep
children from accessing guns by passing child access prevention laws. Congress must pass legislation that subjects
firearms to the same consumer product safety regulations that cover virtually all other consumer products. Congress
must also require childproof safety features on all guns.
Close the gun show loophole. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires federally licensed firearms
dealers to conduct background checks on every sale. However, a loophole in the law allows private dealers to sell
firearms without a license and avoid the required background checks. This loophole accounts for a large share of all
gun sales, especially at gun shows. It is estimated that over 40 percent of all firearms in this country are sold by
unlicensed sellers to buyers who did not have to submit to a background check. Eighteen states have attempted to
block the loophole by requiring background checks for some categories of gun sales not covered by the Brady Law.
Congress must pass legislation that closes the gun show loophole by requiring criminal background checks on
anyone who attempts to purchase a gun. Nearly two million children live in homes with loaded, unlocked guns.
Impose tougher restrictions on people convicted of a violent misdemeanor or a violent act as a juvenile. A related
loophole exists for people adjuducated for violent and other serious offenses as juveniles who remain able to
purchase guns as adults despite their past violent offenses. Under current law, a conviction for a violent
misdemeanor does not prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing a gun. A study found that a person convicted
of a violent misdemeanor was eight times more likely to be charged with a subsequent firearm and/or violent crime
and one in three people convicted of a violent misdemeanor who tried to buy a handgun was arrested for a new
crime within three years of acquiring the gun. Congress must pass legislation to block these loopholes and prohibit
gun possession by individuals who have been convicted of certain violent misdemeanors and individuals who have
been found delinquent for an act that would have been a felony if committed by an adult....
A Place to Start: Gun-Free Homes The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates nearly two million
children live in homes with loaded, unlocked guns. The presence of guns increases the risk of homicide and suicide.
Parents often think they have adequately protected their children by safely storing their guns, but this sense of
security seems misplaced. A study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that 39 percent of children
interviewed knew the location of their parents' firearms and 22 percent said they had handled the guns despite their
parents' assertions to the contrary. Children under 10 were just as likely to have reported knowing where the guns
were kept and having handled them as older children. Research shows that it is not enough to talk to children about
the dangers of guns. Children exposed to gun safety programs are no less likely to play with guns than those who are
not exposed to such classes. Removing guns from the home is one of the best ways to protect children and teens
from gun deaths....
Family violence in our society is epidemic, child abuse and neglect are widespread and children are exposed to
television programming that glamorizes guns, violence and brutality. Conflict resolution skills are essential in this
environment and not something that are typically taught in school or at home. Concerned parents can partner with
schools, community groups and faith congregations to organize nonviolent conflict resolution support groups and
push for adoption of a conflict resolution curriculum in your local school....
Rejecting the Gun Culture Adults and young people impacted by gun violence and concerned community
members can unite to educate others about our crisis of gun violence. There are moving examples of parents and
other family members of a child killed or injured by a gun channeling their grief and anger into broadening public
understanding of the devastation of guns and increasing political support for stronger gun laws. Mobilize support to
protect children from gun violence....
Many children and teens, particularly in urban areas, are exposed to gangs, drugs, violence and guns on a daily
basis. We must offer positive alternatives and role models for children and teens, especially during after-school
hours, weekends and summers. We must open our congregational, school and community doors and engage young
people in purposeful activities....
Our culture frequently glamorizes guns and violence in movies, television, music and on the internet. Many shows
targeted at children have violent themes and language. Protest and refuse to buy or use products that glamorize or
make violence socially acceptable or fun. Turn off violent programming and read or play with your children instead.
Talk to them about the importance of rejecting violence as a cultural or personal value.
Source C
Cramer, Clayton E. "Permits Should Be Required for Concealed Weapons." Concealed
Weapons. Kacy Lovelace. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. At Issue. Rpt. from
"Arizona Goes Vermont." Shotgun News (1 June 2010). Opposing Viewpoints In
Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.
Clayton E. Cramer is a software designer and historian. His sixth book, Armed American: The
Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie, was released in 2007.
It has been another astonishing month for the right to carry. Arizona effectively "went Vermont." The state
legislature repealed the requirement that those over 21 have a concealed weapon permit, with one apparent
exception: you still need a permit to carry a concealed handgun into a place that serves alcohol. If the establishment
has a prohibition of guns, you still can't enter while carrying. It appears that Arizona will continue to issue concealed
carry permits, both for carrying in bars, and so that Arizonans can carry concealed in the more than 30 states that
recognize Arizona permits.
Concerns About Concealed Weapons Carriers I've written before that I have some concerns about abolishing
the requirement for a concealed carry permit. One of those concerns is political; opponents of shall-issue permit
laws may use the passage of such laws in Alaska and Arizona as evidence of a deep dark conspiracy to repeal all
gun laws. My flippant response is, "Only in states whose names start with A." The more thoughtful response is,
"You mean slippery slopes really do exist? Not just in the direction of more restrictive gun control?" Since there are
only a few states left that do not have shall-issue concealed weapon permit laws maybe I don't need to worry too
much about this.
My other concern is that there are people for whom carrying a gun may not be wise. These are people who are not
prohibited from owning a gun, but who are short-tempered, or who get drunk and stupid in public places, or are
mentally unstable. They have not crossed the line into a prohibited category—and yet if we could find some way to
discourage such a person from carrying a gun, it might be a good thing. In the last 20 years, concealed weapon
permits have gone from very difficult or impossible to get to pretty easy.
I think most of my readers know at least one person in this category: not quite irresponsible enough for the law to
prohibit owning a gun, but someone who might benefit from a slight encouragement not to carry a gun.
Obviously, serious criminals are not going to let a permit requirement get in their way. Someone who intends
murder, rape, or robbery, isn't going to let a concealed weapon permit stop him. But those are not the people that a
concealed weapon permit law discourages from carrying a weapon. It's the guy who isn't a criminal—but who is not
terribly responsible. If 20% of the population is in this category, and 10% of that 20% decides not to carry a
concealed weapon without a permit, this could still be a net gain for civilized society.
Concealed Weapons Training
In the last 20 years, concealed weapon permits have gone from very difficult or
impossible to get to pretty easy. The biggest obstacle in most of the U.S. now is the training requirement. While
states that do not have those training requirements seem to do just fine, I confess that it does not bother me that
someone has to sit in a classroom for a few hours and learn the legal requirements for use of deadly force. If this
requirement, or having to fill out some paperwork and wait a few weeks for a background check is a big obstacle,
perhaps this will cause some reflection about why you are carrying a gun.
All that said, this was the decision of the Arizona legislature to make. If they conclude, in a few years, that too many
irresponsible persons are carrying concealed weapons to the detriment of public safety, I'm sure that they will
change their law. I do find it interesting that Alaska made a similar decision to repeal its requirement for a permit
several years ago, and has shown no signs of regret. If the sheriff can provide specific examples of reasons to
believe this person is a danger to himself or others... the sheriff can deny a permit.
Iowa's Shall-Carry Battle As I write this column, Iowans are waiting to see it Gov. Chet Culver is going to sign
SF 2379. Iowa for many years has had a discretionary concealed weapon permit law. Iowa sheriffs have largely
unlimited discretion about issuance of concealed weapon permits—and predictably, some sheriffs have issued
permits quite readily, while others have been quite restrictive.
SF 2379 takes away that discretion. It still allows a sheriff to deny a permit if "Probable cause exists to believe,
based upon documented specific actions of the person, where at least one of the actions occurred within two years
immediately preceding the date, of the permit application, that the person is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or in
such other manner as would endanger the person's self or others."
A number of states have similar provisions. If the sheriff can provide specific examples of reasons to believe that
this person is a danger to himself or others—say, because he spends a lot of time screaming at Martians—the sheriff
can still deny a permit. But, "I don't think you need to carry a gun" isn't going to cut it.
The new law also defines what disqualifying actions prohibit receiving a permit, including any "serious or
aggravated misdemeanor" as defined in existing Iowa law, and the usual prohibitions on gun ownership, such as
felony convictions.
Permits are good for five years, and cost $50. A variety of classes meet the training requirement, including "any
national rifle association handgun safety training course," an honorable or general discharge from the armed
services, completion of basic training in the armed services, and a variety of security guard and law enforcement
classes. The bill specifically prohibits sheriffs from requiring serial numbers or model numbers of weapons to be
carried. In addition, the bill recognizes permits issued by other states for nonresidents.
I suspect that by the time you read this column, Culver will either have signed or vetoed this bill. Since it passed
both houses of the Iowa legislature with huge majorities (81-16 in the House, 38-4 in the State Senate), I expect that
at some point, either this year or next, this is going to become law. Twenty-five years ago, when I first became
involved in the gun rights movement, I worried that we were engaged in a losing battle. No more! UPDATE: As we
went to press, Iowa Governor Culver announced that he would be signing the shall-issue concealed weapon permit
law.
Source D
National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action. "Background Checks at Gun Shows Are Unnecessary."
Gun Violence. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Gun Shows:
The Gun Show Myth." 2008. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
As you read, consider the following questions:
1. What happens to people who "engage in the business" of selling guns without a license?
2. What did a 2001 Bureau of Justice Statistics study find?
3. What, according to the viewpoint, does a glance at TV or newspaper coverage of the Middle East show?
Gun shows are large, public events that for many decades have been held in convention centers and banquet halls,
attended by gun enthusiasts, hunters, target shooters, law enforcement and military personnel, and their families.
Under federal law, firearm dealers—persons engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit on a regular
basis—are required to conduct background checks on anyone to whom they sell any firearm, regardless of where the
sale takes place. Federal law also provides that a person who is not a dealer may sell a firearm from his personal
collection without conducting a check.
Though Congress specifically has applied the background check requirement to dealers only, and specifically
exempted from the dealer licensing requirement persons who occasionally sell guns from their personal collections,
gun prohibition activists call this a "loophole." Gun prohibitionists also falsely claim that many criminals get guns
from gun shows; the most recent federal study puts the figure at only 0.7 percent.
After many months of claiming they wanted a bill that required sales of guns at gun shows, by non-dealers, to be
subject to the background check requirement, anti-gun members of Congress voted against such a bill, because it did
not contain other provisions designed to put gun shows out of business. Some of the most relevant facts in the debate
over gun show legislation include:
The Myth of "Unlicensed Dealers"
Under current federal law, it is illegal to "engage in the business" of
"dealing in firearms" without a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Engaged in
the business" means buying and selling firearms as a regular business with the objective of profit. Violations carry a
five-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.
A licensed dealer may do business temporarily at a gun show, just as he could at his permanent licensed premises.
Every legal requirement applies equally at both types of location, including background checks and record keeping
on all transactions. People who "engage in the business" without a license can be arrested and convicted of a federal
felony—whether they "engage in business" at a gun show, or out of a home, office, or vehicle.
Gun Shows Are Not a Source of "Crime Guns"
A 2006 FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] study of
criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample, "None of the [attackers'] rifles,
shotguns, or handguns ... were obtained from gun shows or related activities." Ninety-seven percent of guns in the
study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender
put it, "[T]he 8,000 new gun laws would have made absolutely [no difference], whatsoever, about me getting a
gun.... I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawnshop or anyplace else where firearms are legally
bought and sold."
A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on "Firearms Use by Offenders" found that fewer than 1% of U.S. "crime
guns" came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail
source. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and is the largest such study ever
conducted by the government.
Previous federal studies have found few criminals using gun shows. A 2000 BJS study, "Federal Firearms
Offenders, 1992-98," found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show. Similarly, a
1997 National Institute of Justice study reported less than 2% of criminals' guns come from gun shows.
Gun Shows and Terrorism
Anti-gun organizations have tried to claim that terrorists buy guns at gun shows. Yet
the cases they point to don't prove their point.
One suspect followed to gun shows was later found "unloading shipments of automatic weapons, explosives,
grenades and rocket launchers" in Beirut. These arms, of course, are not available at U.S. gun shows.
Another gun buyer "was arrested in an investigation of the September 11 attacks." But the probe never linked him to
the attacks, and there was no indication that he ever shipped guns overseas. Another case involved an Irish man
convicted for using a "straw buyer" at a Florida show to purchase guns from a licensed dealer, for shipment back to
Ireland. But in this case, the system worked—the smuggler was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.
A glance at any TV or newspaper coverage of the Middle East shows that terrorists have no shortage of access to
firearms, and far more powerful weapons, without resorting to highly regulated markets in the United States.
Gun Show Legislation Overreaches Many legislators have proposed to restrict gun show sales, but their
proposals would simply create a bureaucratic nightmare—shutting down the shows while leaving criminal markets
untouched. Among other problems, various gun show bills (such as H.R. 96 in the 110th Congress)1 would:
 Create gun owner registration. "Special firearms event operators" would have to submit names of all
"vendors" to the U.S. Justice Department both before and after the show—whether or not any of the
vendors sold a gun. A private citizen who enters a gun show hoping to sell or trade a firearm, but who does
not find a buyer and leaves with his own gun, would be on file with the Justice Department forever as a
"special firearms event vendor."
 Require registration of gun shows. This bureaucratic requirement would allow an anti-gun administration
to harass event organizers for paperwork violations. It would also allow government agents to harass gun
owners who gather for purposes other than selling guns.
 Allow harassment of show organizers and vendors. H.R. 96, for instance, allows inspection, at a gun show,
of a show promoter's or dealer's entire business records—including records of transactions that occurred at
other shows or at a dealer's licensed place of business. These inspections are time consuming for licensees
and highly intrusive; conducting business at a gun show while simultaneously undergoing a compliance
inspection would be impossible.
 Turn casual conversations into "gun show sales." A person could still agree to sell a gun to a neighbor in a
conversation over the backyard fence; but if the same conversation took place at a gun show, the
background check requirement would forever apply to that gun. This unworkable and unenforceable system
would even apply to a gun that a seller and buyer talk about at a gun show, but don't have with them.
 Fail to provide for true instant checks. The biggest controversy during the 1999 debate on gun show
legislation was how long a "delay period" should be allowed for investigation of a questionable background
check. The Lautenberg Amendment allowed three business days—the same as current law for dealers at
their regular places of business. That delay would, of course, be impractical for a weekend gun show.
Source E
Moorhouse, John. "Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Gun Violence." Gun Control. Ed.Tami Roleff. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. From "Gun Control and Crime." Carolina Journal Online.
2006. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.
The following viewpoint is an interview of John Moorhouse, professor of economics at Wake Forest University in
North Carolina, by Mitch Kokai of the Carolina Journal.
As you read, consider the following questions:
1. What explanation does Moorhouse give for deciding to do a study on the effect of gun control laws on
crime rates?
2. What factors did Moorhouse use in his index of gun control?
3. What is the contagion effect, according to Moorhouse?
Mitch Kokai: In addressing this topic of whether gun control reduces crime or crime increases gun control, you
actually put together a fairly sophisticated study looking at crime data and gun-control laws across the 50 states.
John Moorhouse: Yes, there is so much talk in the media and in the press about gun control reducing crime that, like
some other scholars, I wanted to take a systematic look at that and did so by trying to explain crime rates in the
states. It depends on a number of factors, which we could talk about, if you like. And also, since states have different
degrees of gun control, whether that made a difference in the crime rate. But do it systematically.A spokesman for
the Family Physicians Against Violence said on a radio program several years ago that even if a state had good and
strict gun control laws, they could be undermined and made ineffective if an adjacent state had weak gun control
laws. And so, I was thinking, as an economist, I ought to be able to test that hypothesis. The good doctor said it as if
it were a fact, but I interpreted it as a hypothesis worth exploring.
So, how did you go about trying to test just how good the correlation was between gun control laws and the amount
of crime? Well, as I said earlier, I'm looking at, or looked at, crime rates by state. And there are a number of factors:
demographic factors, economic factors and law enforcement factors. And I took those into account. Then I had an
index of gun control, which was constructed out of 30 facets of gun control put into six categories and weighted. For
example, a state that had a five-day waiting period before you could take possession of a gun, they received a higher
score than a state that had only a three-day waiting period. Also, [using] the index from the Open Society Institute, I
looked at the degree of law enforcement of gun control. And so then I used the index as a measure of gun control. I
looked at the demographic variables, the economic variables, the law enforcement variables, and then this gun
control index, which allowed me to compare the degree of gun control in one state with another. And then we
looked at the adjacent states and their level of gun control and constructed a measure of the so-called contagion
effect.
So, putting together this study, seeing this index of gun control, comparing that then to the crime rates in
the 50 states, did you find any relationship? I found absolutely no support that gun control laws reduce crime rates.
And [as for] crime rates, we looked at property crime, violent crimes—ten categories of crimes—and in not one of
them did we find any impact of gun control, nor did we find that there was this contagion effect; that is, that a
neighboring state with weak gun control laws seemed to have no effect on crime rates in the primary states. So, we
found no evidence that gun control, or its absence, had an effect on crime rates. But if I may go on, what we did find
was kind of the reverse. In areas that had high crime rates, there seemed to be political support for more stringent
gun control. And so we looked at using crime to explain the gun control index. We took into account some other
factors, and we found very strong evidence that high crime rates lead to more stringent gun control laws. But
subsequent to that, there was no impact on crime rates.
One of the political implications of your study would seem to be that the argument that you set out to test would lead
some to think that, well, if we want the most effective control, then all the states should adopt the most stringent
forms of gun control to avoid having this spillover, or the contagion effect, that you were talking about. It sounds as
if your study would suggest that, no, that wouldn't have [made] any difference. You'd just have stronger gun control
with no impact on crime. Yes, exactly. There is just no support for this contagion effect. But you continually hear
people talk about good gun control laws being undermined by the laws of an adjacent state. I had not seen any
studies that really explored that in a systematic, statistical way. And our study, again, found no support for that
hypothesis.
Scholars always like to have their studies replicated to determine that what they found is, in fact, what the patterns
would show in repeated tests. Would you like to see other people perform the same or similar tests to try to find the
same result? Absolutely. There are interesting questions that are related to the ones we addressed, or addressing our
questions in a slightly different manner. This is always welcome. I am not under the illusion that this is the final
study that will settle all the debates. It won't. It's just one among many, and I hope that there are additional studies in
the future.
But the bottom line is, based on what you know from your study at this point, there doesn't seem to be any link
between gun control laws and the crime rates? No, we found none. And I should mention that the results of our
study are consistent with some studies done in the '80s and '90s that were pretty sophisticated. There just isn't any
hard evidence that gun control affects crime rates.
Source F
Stearns, Cliff. "Laws Permitting Concealed Weapons Ensure Public Safety." Concealed Weapons. Kacy Lovelace. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2011. At Issue. Rpt. from"Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers." Human Events (26 Jan. 2009).
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.
Cliff Stearns is a Republican Representative to the United States House of Representatives representing Florida's 6th
Congressional District.
Studies have found that those who use concealed weapons to deter a criminal are less likely to suffer injury than
those unarmed during an attack. In another study, 40% of convicted felons admitted to being deterred by the
possibility of a concealed weapon. Not allowing citizens to protect themselves with a concealed weapon is morally
wrong, leading to needless death and a denial of the inherent right to self defense. Additionally, this right should not
be limited to the confines of the permit holders' home state, but should allow them to defend themselves while
traveling throughout the United States.
The right to bear arms is more than a Constitutional right: every human being has the natural unalienable right to
self-defense. [The Roman philosopher] Cicero said 2,000 years ago, "If our lives are endangered by plots or violence
or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."
The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to
use arms in self-defense. Right to carry laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry
concealed firearms for their own protection.
Decreasing Crime with Concealed Weapons Laws
So many liberal politicians and self-appointed experts
want to keep honest Americans from having access to firearms, even though, since 2003, in states which allow
concealed carry, violent crime rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s. The reverse logic of this
"knee jerk" reaction is astounding and has lead to an outright assault on our basic Constitutional and natural rights.
These misguided policies to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens literally mean a death sentence
for thousands of Americans.
Look at the facts. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, "[R]obbery and
assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any
other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." In approximately 2.5 million instances each year,
someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation.
In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of
felons said they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals
admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.
Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than peace of mind for those individuals—it pays off
for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI's Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states
with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate
and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have
passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade. Since adopting a concealed carry law Florida's total violent crime
rate has dropped 32%.
Florida's Concealed Weapons Model
In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a "shall issue" law that
has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law
would lead to vigilante justice and "Wild West" shootouts on every corner.
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida's total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate
has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas' violent
crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.
The Moral Case for Concealed Weapons
Another study makes the moral case for expanding and enhancing
right-to-carry laws. A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996
found "that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase
in accidental deaths." Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, "If those states which did not have right-to-carry
concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000
aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly."
Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear
that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more
law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has
issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.
Laws allowing the concealed carrying of a firearm are on the books in 48 states, in some form. Two-thirds of
Americans live in states with right-to-carry laws, their respective state houses and governors recognizing their
fundamental right to self-defense. But let me pose a question. Should your natural right to self defense and your
Constitutional right to bear arms end when you cross a state line? I think not. It doesn't make sense to me for
Americans to forfeit their safety because they happen to be on vacation or on a business trip. . . .
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Our society is a violent society.
However, the innocent deserve access to the tools they need to defend themselves. By passing H.R. 197, we can help
reduce the carnage wrought by armed criminals. Let's give those who decide to take the responsibility of possessing
a concealed carry permit a fighting chance anywhere in America.
Source G
Cartoon: Varvel, Gary. Cartoon. Indianapolis Star
[Indianapolis] 18 Dec. 2012: n. pag. Print.
Source H
Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Jaeah Lee. "Mass Shooters
Weapons, 1982-2012." Chart. Mother Jones. Mother Jones and
the Foundation of National Progress, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 12
Mar. 2013.