Showing papers on "Gun control published in 1988"

Gun control, gun ownership, and suicide prevention.

Abstract: The relationship of the extent of gun ownership and the strictness of gun control laws to suicide and homicide rates in the nine major geographic regions of the United States was explored. Gun ownership, rather than the strictness of gun control laws, was found to be the strongest correlate of the rates of suicide and homicide by guns. Regions with a higher extent of gun ownership had higher rates of suicide and homicide by firearms.

Second Thoughts About Gun-Control

Abstract: GUN CONTROL, it has been said, is the acid test of liberalism. All good liberals favor stricter gun controls. After all, doesn't the United States have the most heavily armed population on earth? Are we not the world's most violent people? Surely these facts must be causally connected. The apparently desperate need to "do something" about the vast quantity of firearms and firearms abuse is, to the good liberal, obvious. At one time, it seemed evident to me, we needed to mount a campaign to resolve the crisis of handgun proliferation. Guns are employed in an enormous number of crimes in this country. In other countries with stricter gun laws, gun crime is rare. Many of the firearms involved in crime are cheap handguns, so-called Saturday Night Specials, for which no legitimate use or need exists. Many families buy these guns because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. If there were fewer guns around, there would also be less crime and less violence. Most of the public also believes this, and has supported stricter gun control for as long as pollsters have been asking the question. Yet Congress has refused to act in a meaningful way, owing mainly to the all-powerful "gun lobby" headed by the National Rifle Associa-

Firearm violence and the effects of gun control legislation

Abstract: Two gun control laws designed to reduce different types of violent crimes were evaluated. In 1981, East St. Louis, IL, imposed stricter penalties for individuals who carry firearms outside their homes for protection (individuals could keep firearms in their homes). This law had only a temporary impact in reducing firearm use in assaults and robberies. In Evanston, IL, a slightly different approach was taken with legislation that banned handguns in the entire city (i.e., individuals could not keep handguns within their homes). A temporary reduction in firearm assaults occurred a few months before the gun law took effect. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Firearms and Violence in Australia

Abstract: This paper provides basic information on firearms and gun control It presents statistics on the availability of firearms in Australia and their use in crimes of violence It then examines the Canadian experience of introducing gun control measures and considers the role of law enforcement in the regulation and use of firearms The authors comment on several specific proposals for gun control, including customs interdiction, security measures, limits on media portrayals of weapons use, and penalties for gun related offences

Historical development and subsequent erosion of the right to keep and bear arms

Abstract: Two serious challenges exist to the effectiveness of any form of firearms control program. One has been tested in the courts and the other has not. If either or both are accepted, then no firearms control legislation will be effective. First, there is the question of prior restraint which would apply primarily to firearms registration or licensing legislation. In 1931 the Supreme Court held that the states cannot preclude the publication of a newspaper simply because that publication had a history of libelous activity. In short, prior censorship was not permitted regardless of the circumstances. Instead of enjoining an individual from publishing, the most the state can do in the exercise of its police power is to exercise its power to punish individuals for violations of the law as these breaches occur. If the principle of prior restraint is applicable to the right to keep and bear arms, and no court has yet held that it is, then the states could not enjoin the citizen-soldier from owning firearms as would be allowed under court definitions. The state could then punish at will violations of the law when and if a citizen used his firearm illegally, but it could not prevent him from owning a firearm through some form of prior restraint mechanism. Because of the grave dangers which firearms can present, the courts might allow the states or the federal government to prevent certain classes of people from bearing or keeping arms within the mitigated doctrine of prior restraint provided that this decision is made on a rational basis. Such groups could include, for example, former convicted felons, drug addicts or alcoholics. The second challenge to the effectiveness of firearm control programs involves a citizen's right against self-incrimination. In a series of 1968 decisions the Supreme Court invalidated a federal gambling tax stamp on the grounds that to identify one's self as a gambler pursuant to federal law might subject an individual to state prosecution. The Court also indicated that a criminal might not have to follow certain provisions of the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act for the same reason. This might mean, as it is interpreted further by the courts, that only law abiding citizens would have to abide by provisions of this law and any similar subsequent legislation. If this principle is judiciously continued the right against self-incrimination could be more significant in the protection of the right to keep and bear arms than the second amendment. Presumably, the same protection could be offered against state controls since the fifth amendment has been incorporated through the fourteenth amendment and is thus applicable to the states.