Gun politics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term gun politics refers to the various public policy debates surrounding the freedom or restriction (gun rights versus gun control) of private ownership and usage of firearms, and to what extent such policy influences crime, capacity for self-defense, and the balance of power between the individual and the state.
Contents |
[edit] Specific locales
This article discusses these policies in a general sense. For more specific discussion of policy in specific locales, see:
- Gun politics in Australia
- Gun politics in Brazil
- Gun politics in Canada
- Gun politics in Finland
- Gun politics in Mexico
- Gun politics in South Africa
- Gun politics in Switzerland
- Gun politics in the United Kingdom
- Gun politics in the United States
[edit] Summary of positions
Those who favor greater restrictions on firearms ownership and availability tend to believe some subset of:
- There is no fundamental right to own firearms.
- Guns represent a more effective method of killing than other varieties of weapons, and their elimination would lower rates of death and injury.
- Gun control legislation reduces violent crime.
- Most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents, and suicides; thus, guns are more dangerous to the owners than to intended targets.
- In incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is often more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon; also, criminals may act in groups. Thus, guns are of little use as self defense for the typical owner.
- The presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence.
- Citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against crime because government is tasked with that obligation.
- Citizens need to protect themselves against crime, but owning firearms is not a good way to accomplish this.
- Citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they vigilantly confront government malfeasance before violence is necessary. Moreover, even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless to take up individual small arms against the modern military that a government would bring to bear.
- Guns, being devices designed to kill, raise the level of violence in any disagreement between people.
- Gun control, properly and judiciously applied, lessens (though cannot eradicate) the possibility that criminals will obtain firearms.
- Fewer guns means fewer deaths from homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths [1].
- Firearms represent the means of 55% of suicides [2]; gun control would reduce the number of such deaths.
Those who favor maintaining or extending the private ownership of firearms tend to believe some subset of:
- Free men own weapons. Slaves don't.
- Owning firearms is a fundamental right (In the United States, for example, the Second Amendment, the second right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, states "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.")
- An attack would be over long before the police could respond to an emergency call and so guns provide protection that the police could not
- Equipping to defend against criminals or animals is a right.
- Equipping for subsistence and survival is a right, and firearms represent a legitimate means of hunting or harvesting animals for food.
- Government should not be empowered to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens.
- Guns in the homes of the law-abiding populace reduce the occurrence of burglary and home invasion crimes.
- Family, public health and insurance actuarial death statistics demonstrate that the risk of responsibly owning a gun is negligible compared to other typical hazards, e.g., bathtubs and swimming pools, automobiles, bicycles, suffocation hazards, and ingestible poisons.
- Although government is tasked with an obligation to protect citizens collectively, government is not obligated to protect any given individual citizen without a special relationship established with that citizen prior to victimization, and thus citizens have a demonstrable need for personal protection. (In U.S. case law, courts have held that the police cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for failing to provide individual protection (Warren vs. D.C)) [3]
- An armed populace decreases the overall occurrence of violent crime; widespread ownership and discreet carry of handguns by the law-abiding advances civilization by deterring assault, bullying, mayhem, robbery, rape, and murder.
- Gun control laws have a disproportionate effect on the freedoms of the law-abiding as criminals are willing to break the law to acquire, possess, and use guns.
- Carrying a firearm provides the means to make one's self safer and is an exercise of the inalienable human right of self defense.
- An armed populace is a deterrent to the excesses of government; the threat of violent revolution, or "coup d'état", by the people is a check and balance against an abusive totalitarian government.
- Existing gun laws would be sufficient if the government were able and willing to enforce them.
- Increasing movement to blame violence in Mexico and Canada on American gun owners represents mere political rhetoric rather than a position with an empirical basis.
- Women are particularly at risk from violence and require access to guns as a means of self defense from stronger men, guns being an easily handled and controlled tool of equalizing force. Opponents of gun control claim more control leads to higher rates of rape and sexual assault.
- Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
- The inaccessibility of guns will not deter all criminals from violent crime; they may merely find different (and possibly messier and more painful) methods of harming others.
- If guns were illegal, criminals would still own them because they have no respect for the law now.
- If a criminal is unsure who is carrying a firearm, they will be more selective and even choose a crime that doesn't involve direct confrontation due to their fear of getting injured or killed.
- People are more likely to commit suicide with medications and poisons than with any type of firearm
These lists should not be construed as exhaustive; there may exist other positions not represented here.
[edit] Degrees of gun legislation
There are many areas of debate into exactly what kinds of firearms should be allowed to be privately owned, if any, and how and where they may be used.
In the United States, full-automatic firearms are legal in most states, but have extremely restrictive requirements under federal law. They must have been manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986; a $200 transfer tax must be paid; approval must be met in writing prior to purchase from the local sheriff or chief of police; fingerprints and a photograph must be submitted to the ATF; a criminal background check must be performed. This process can take 4 to 6 months to complete. Written permission must be given by the ATF at least 30 days in advance if one wishes to take his full-automatic firearm out of his state. Due to the static number of full-automatic firearms on the market (fixed at 1986 levels), their collective value continues to increase. Most full-automatic firearms for sale cost in excess of $8,000USD, which is for many seeking to make a legal purchase the most prohibitive factor. Several states have decided to prohibit the sale of full-automatic firearms altogether. In most US states however, one can buy semi-automatic firearms over the counter if the buyer meets basic legal requirements, and after completing the proper paperwork and a criminal background check (and in some states, a waiting period).
Internationally, many countries have an outright ban on full-automatic firearms, and some countries ban nearly all kinds of firearms.
In Switzerland, however, every male between the ages of 20 and 42 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the national guard until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation. During their national guard enrollment, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes, together with 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition, sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that each firearm is always combat-ready. In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons. Ammunition (also MilSpec surplus) sold at rifle ranges is intended to be expended at the time of purchase, but target and sporting ammunition is widely available in gun and sporting goods stores.
Another issue is whether individuals have the right to carry a handgun concealed on their person, even if it is perfectly legal and easy to own a pistol in general. In the United States another area of dispute is whether any requirement that firearms be registered constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment by impairing the exercise of that explicitly protected right. There is the perception that firearms registration - by making it easier for government officers to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation - constitutes an easily exploited encroachment upon individual personal privacy and property rights.
[edit] General discussion of arguments
[edit] Balance of power
Advocates for the right to bear arms often point to previous totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation. Totalitarian governments such as Fascist Italy and Germany during World War II, as well as some Communist states such as the People's Republic of China are examples of this. Bolshevist Russia and the Soviet Union allowed personal gun ownership from 1918 to 1929; the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the harsh Stalinist regime.
There is no direct causal relationship between gun control and totalitarianism. There are a number of countries that have had gun control in place for many years -- the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia[citation needed] for example -- that are not totalitarian governments.
There is only one country which was democratic prior to becoming totalitarian, the Weimar Republic, one of the weakest governments in Europe in the twenties and early thirties, from which the Third Reich arose. There, the Nazis actually liberalized the gun laws of the Weimar Republic with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938, but prohibited possession of weapons by Jews shortly thereafter. [4]
Firearms-rights advocates also point to the fact that Japan, when it was not a democracy, had a long history of weapons ownership that was strictly limited to only the elite and their Samurai bodyguards [citation needed]. Peasants, without any access to arms, were at the mercy of powerful warlords. Many of elites were unarmed after 10th century [citation needed] and even samurai eventually disdained the use of their weapons. Peasants were never completely disarmed and carried weapons including firearms for hunting and other purposes. Even today, shotguns and rifles can be owned in Japan provided that the owner has no criminal record and registers his weapon.
Registration of firearms in some countries has led to confiscations of formerly legal firearms and the outlawing of the ownership of firearms to various degrees.
Some oppose registration of guns or licensing of gun owners because if captured, the associated records would provide military invaders with the locations and identities of gun owners, simplifying elimination of law-abiding (i.e. patriotic) resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers; and was widely practiced by German and Soviet troops during World War II.
The Battles of Lexington and Concord, sometimes known as the Shot heard 'round the world, in the 1770s, were started in part because General Gage sought to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the populace. This order and the events surrounding it are important to the development of modern democratic institutions because of the effect the founding of the United States had on contemporary governments and the downfall of monarchies in the rest of the world.[citation needed]
[edit] Self-defense
Both sides actively debate the relevance of self-defense in modern society. Some scholars, e.g. John Lott, claim to have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals confront citizens - that is, increases in the number or strictness of gun control laws are correlated with increases in the number or severity of violent crimes. . Besides showing a drop in crime correlating with shall issue laws, Lott's results also show that increasing the unemployment rate is statistically associated with a drop in crime and that a small decrease in the population which is black, female, and between 40 and 49 would result in a big decrease in homicide.
Other scholars, e.g. Gary Kleck, take a slightly different tack; while criticizing Lott's theories as (paradoxically) overemphasizing the threat to the average American from armed crime, and therefore the need for armed defense, Kleck's work speaks towards similar support for firearm rights by showing that the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime. The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not[5], University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s (In his 2005 book, Freakonomics, Levitt argues that legalized abortion was the most important factor). While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect, pro or con, resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.
Thirty-nine US states have passed "shall issue" concealed carry legislation of one form or another. In these states, law-abiding citizens (usually after giving evidence of completing a training course) may carry handguns on their person for self-protection. Other states and some cities such as New York City may issue permits. Only Illinois, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia have explicit legislation restricting personal carry. Vermont and Alaska place no restrictions at all on lawful citizens carrying concealed weapons. Alaska retains a shall issue permit process for reciprocity where allowed.
Many people consider self defense to be a fundamental and inalienable human right and believe that firearms are an important tool in the exercise of this right. They consider the prohibition of an effective means of self defense to be unethical and to violate Constitutional guarantees.
[edit] Domestic violence
Gun control advocates argue that the strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence, most often referring to the series of studies by Arthur Kellermann, although other studies are generally in agreement. In response to public suggestions by some advocates of firearms for home defense, that homeowners were at high risk of injury from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann investigated the circumstances surrounding all in-home homicides in three cities of about half a million population each over five years, and found that the risk of a homicide was in fact slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. From the details of the homicides he concluded that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in a fatal injury was much higher when a gun was readily available (essentially all the increased risk being in homes where a handgun was kept loaded and unlocked), compared to a lower rate of fatality in domestic violence not involving a firearm. This increase in mortality was large enough to overwhelm any protective effect the presence of a gun might have by deterring or defending against against burglaries, home invasions, etc., which occurred much less frequently. The increased risk averaged over all homes containing guns was similar in size to that correlated with an individual with a criminal record living in the home, but substantially less that that associated with demographic factors known to be risks for violence, such as renting a home vs. ownership, or living alone vs. with others.
Critics of Kellermann's work and its use by advocates of gun control point out that since it deliberately ignores crimes of violence occurring outside the home (Kellermann states at the outset that the characteristics of such homicides are much more complex and ambiguous, and would be virtually impossible to classify rigorously enough), it is more directly a study of domestic violence than of gun ownership. Kellermann does in fact include in the conclusion of his 1993 paper several paragraphs referring to the need for further study of domestic violence and its causes and prevention. Gun control opponent Gary Kleck agrees with the basic finding, however, that contrary to a widespread perception, the overall frequency of homicide in the home by an invading stranger is much less than that of domestic violence.
[edit] Statistics in the Public Policy Arena
The specter of the private ownership of guns and their relationship to domestic violence casualties is a very significant variable used for political leverage in the policy debate. A frequent argument portends that a gun is "far more likely to kill or injure a family member or other person known to the gun owner than to be used in self-defense against an unknown home invader." This line of statistical reasoning is propagated on billboards and radio and television commercials in addition to its use on the floor of legislative bodies. In many cases, the use of the domestic shooting statistics are criticized by gun rights advocates as being propounded in oblique manner without proper context. That is, while many shootings occurring in the course of a heated mutual argument of passion, others occur where a partner or family member of a "romantic" or familial relationship, who is an ongoing victim of domestic physical abuse or sexual abuse uses the force of a firearm in self-defense action against the perpetrator who also happens to be known to or related to the victim. As a corollary, in such policy advertising campaigns, the comparison of "domestic" gun casualties is usually not accompanied by murder and assault prosecution numbers stemming from the shootings occurring in that context. Of particular note is that in many of the latter cases, the victim firing in self-defense is frequently a woman or youth victim of a more physically powerful abuser. In those situations gun rights advocates argue that the firearm arguably becomes an equalizer against the lethal and disabling force frequently exercised by the abusers.
In 2002, 1,202 women were killed by their intimate partners, accounting for 30% of all murders of women and of that 1,202, 58% were killed by intimate partners using guns. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports
In 2002, 700 women were killed by intimates using guns compared to 175 men. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Intimate Homicide
In a similar fashion, while both sides frequently make misleading arguments in the political arena, many gun control advocates also point to statistics in advertising campaigns purporting that "approximately 9 or so children are killed by people discharging firearms every day across the US,"[6]. Gun rights advocates argue that this statistic is seldom accompanied by a differentiation of those children killed by individuals from unintentional discharges and stray bullets, and of those "children," under the age of majority, which is 18 in the U.S., who are killed while acting as aggressors in street gang related mutual combat or while committing gun crimes, many of which are seen as arising from the War on Drugs. There is further controversy about courts trying and sentencing these mostly "young men" as adults despite them not having reached the age of consent. A significant number of the aforementioned deaths occur through suicide.
There has been widespread agreement on both sides that the use of trigger locks and the importance of gun safety education has a mitigating effect on the occurrence of accidental discharges involving children. There is somewhat less agreement about vicarious liability case law assigning strict liability to the gun owner for those firearms casualties occurring when a careless gun owner loses proper custody and control of her or his firearm.
[edit] Statistics
[edit] Problems with statistics
Many advocates on all sides of the issue manipulate numbers, i.e., lump gun deaths together, or segregate them according to intent. Broad categories of deaths are often broken down (by size):
Gun control advocates' claims center around accidental death and homicide, since there is no agreement whether, after gun regulation, suicides decrease or not. [7]
Many results indicated by the media and many official reports indicate only raw numbers or percentages, and then are often erroneously compared to previous reports. This does not take into account the growth of the population, and other factors. Typically a good number indicates incidences per thousand or per hundred thousand.
Other numbers are often not factored into discussions. For example, in Australia, knives are 2-3 times more likely to be used in robberies than firearms.
The numbers of legal versus illegal firearms, in areas with laws legislating proper gun ownership, are also glossed over. For example, 90% of all firearm related homicides in Australia are committed with unregistered firearms (since the 1995 & 1996 regulations).
[edit] Some U.S. statistics
The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics <ref>"Myth No. 2: Gun Control Laws Reduce Crime", National Center for Policy Analysis, undated, accessed September 26, 2006</ref>:
- New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
- In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
- In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
- Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [8]
- Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.
- Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
- 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.<ref>Note: since New York City has one of the lowest homicide rates - as of 2006 - of any major city in the U.S., the other three cities listed - Chicago, Detroit, and Washington - must have much higher than average homicide rates.</ref>
- After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.
- Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.
On the other hand, the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report ranking of cities over 40,000 in population by violent crime rates (per 100,000 population) does not identify cities or states with restrictive gun laws, as mentioned above, as particularly crime-ridden places. For instance, the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates for 2003:<ref>Crime in the United State by City, Year = 2003, 40,000 and over in Population, Ranked by Violent Crime Rate, Source: FBI's Uniform Crime Report, 2003; compiled by Russ Long, February 2005]</ref>
| City | State | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Saginaw | MI |
| 2 | Irvington | NJ |
| 3 | Camden | NJ |
| 4 | Alexandria | LA |
| 5 | Detroit | MI |
| 6 | East Orange | NJ |
| 7 | Atlanta | GA |
| 8 | Springfield | MA |
| 9 | Fort Myers | FL |
| 10 | Miami | FL |
The ten states with the highest violent crime rates for 2003 are mostly states with relatively permissive gun laws:<ref>Crime in the United State by State, Year = 2003, Ranked by Violent Crime Rate, Source: FBI's Uniform Crime Report, 2003; compiled by Russ Long, February 2005</ref>
| State | |
|---|---|
| 1 | South Carolina |
| 2 | Florida |
| 3 | Maryland |
| 4 | Tennessee |
| 5 | New Mexico |
| 6 | Delaware |
| 7 | Louisiana |
| 8 | Nevada |
| 9 | Alaska |
| 10 | California |
[edit] References
<references />
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
[edit] Pro gun control
- American Hunters and Shooters Association
- A Case for Gun Control
- The International Action Network on Small Arms
- Brady Campaign-Center to Prevent Gun Violence
- Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
- Communitarian Network: The Case for Domestic Disarmament
- Guninformation.org: Information about Gun Control and the Second Amendment
- In defense of Kellermann's study
- Legal Community Against Gun Violence
- Potowmack Institute
- Second Amendment Center
- Second Amendment Facts
- Tim Lambert Gun Control Archive
- Violence Policy Center
- Center for Gun Policy and Research
[edit] Pro gun rights
- The Racist Roots of Gun Control
- Buckeye Firearms Association
- Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
- Eastern Nebraska Gun Club Inc.
- GunFacts
- Packing.org - concealed carry law information
- A Human Right
- The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales
- Gun Owners of America
- Gun Ownership in India
- GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues
- Defend Your Rights
- Guns Save Lives
- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
- Keep and Bear Arms
- Libertarian Party
- National Rifle Association of America
- Pink Pistols
- People's Rights Organization
- Second Amendment Foundation
- Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah
- Virginia Citizens Defense League
- Oregon Firearms Federation
- Oregon Gun Owners Forum not to be confused with Oregon Gun Owners
- The High Road Forumja:銃社会
Categories: Cleanup from September 2006 | All pages needing cleanup | Articles to be merged since November 2006 | Articles lacking sources from August 2006 | All articles lacking sources | Articles with unsourced statements | Articles with weasel words | Firearms | Gun politics | Sport and politics | Criminology topics
