Showing papers on "Gun control published in 1998"

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws

Abstract: Preface 1: Introduction 2: How to Test the Effects of Gun Control 3: Gun Ownership, Gun Laws, and the Data on Crime 4: Concealed-Handgun Laws and Crime Rates: The Empirical Evidence 5: The Victims and the Benefits from Protection 6: What Determines Arrest Rates and the Passage of Concealed-Handgun Laws? 7: The Political and Academic Debate 8: Some Final Thoughts Appendixes Notes Bibliography Index

Culture, social organization, and patterns of violence.

Abstract: Traditional social theorizing holds that strong and cohesive family, community, and religious institutions rein in violence. However, in cultures where certain types of violence are condoned, this should not be true. Specifically, in the U.S. South and West, where culture-of-honor traditions persist, greater social organization should be associated with more violence. This pattern was confirmed in examinations of argument-related homicide rates (Study 1); mass consumption patterns for violence in entertainment, recreation, and vocational pursuits (Study 2); and voting patterns of political elites on gun control and national defense issues (Study 3). Across the 3 studies, social organization was associated with effects in the South and West opposite of what they were in the North. Implications for general theories of cultural evolution, suggesting a cycle in the way societies crystallize and change, are discussed.

Self-Interest, Symbolic Politics, and Public Attitudes Toward Gun Control

Abstract: Numerous studies have found that immediate and tangible self-interest has a minimal influence on public attitudes toward many policy issues. We examine public attitudes toward gun control in order to determine whether gun owners exhibit distinctive policy preferences. Our results indicate that self-interest strongly influences public preferences on gun control and that banning handguns evokes stronger self-interest effects than banning assault weapons or imposing a waiting period on purchases of firearms. We conclude by discussing why gun control evokes self-interested calculations among gun owners, the implications of our findings for self-interest theory, and suggestions for further lines of research.

Moral controversies in American politics : cases in social regulatory policy

Abstract: Moral controversies are part and parcel of American politics. This book examines eight social regulatory policy issues: abortion, pornography, death penalty, gun control, affirmative action, church-state separation, official English, and gay rights, with case studies illustrating each.

An update on the impact of gun control legislation on suicide

Abstract: Objective: The authors review recent literature examining the impact of gun control legislation on suicide rates. Method: MEDLINE and PsychLIT searches on gun ownership, gun control, and psychiatric firearm-related topics from 1982 through March 1997 were examined for reports focusing on gun control legislation and suicide. Results: Suicide rates typically decreased following implementation of a variety of firearm control laws. Suicide-prone individuals seldom substitute other means or go outside legal channels for suicide weapons. Firearm restrictions may decrease the ready accessibility of firearms enough to allow the peak period of suicidality to pass. Conclusion: The findings support gun control measures as a strategy for reducing suicide rates.

The changing politics of gun control

Abstract: Chapter 1 Preface Chapter 2 Introduction Chapter 3 Jackboots or Lace Panties? The Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, and Firearms Chapter 4 Congress and Gun Control Chapter 5 Madison's Mistake? Judicial Construction of the Second Amendment Chapter 6 Gun Control Politics in California Chapter 7 The Structure of Public Support for Gun Control: The 1998 Battle over Question 3 in Maryland Chapter 8 Virginia: The Politcs of Concealed Weapons Chapter 9 Gun Control Laws in the States: Political and Apolitical Influences Chapter 10 Going Hunting Where the Ducks Are: The National Rifle Association and the Grass Roots Chapter 11 Trying to Stop the Craziness of This Business: Gun Control Groups Chapter 12 Public Opinion and Gun Control: Appearance and Transparence in Support and Opposition Chapter 13 The Electoral Politics of Gun Ownership Chapter 14 Index

The impact of gun control on suicide: Studies from Canada

Abstract: An increasing popular proposal for reducing the incidence of suicide has been restricting the availability of methods for committing suicide. Countries differ in the most popular method for suicide, but firearms are the preferred method in some, including Canada and the United States. An opportunity for studying the effects of legislative gun control laws on their use for suicide is provided by Canada';s Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 (Bill C-51). This paper reviews the studies on the impact of this act, exploring such factors as age and sex. Research on homicide and accidental death are also presented. It is concluded that, although gun control may have an impact, further study is warranted.

Securing a Free State: Why the Second Amendment Matters

Abstract: Securing a Free State: Why the Second Amendment Matters David Harmer i I. INTRODUCTION The printed program for the symposium1 at which I presented the paper giving rise to this article mistakenly entitled my remarks, "Serving a Free State." When asked my title some weeks earlier, what I had replied was something quite different: "Securing a Free State"-a phrase suggested by the Second Amendment itself, and one much more in harmony with its purpose. Although the announced title directly contradicted the thrust of my remarks, the error was serendipitous; it gave symposium participants the opportunity to reconsider the debate over Second Amendment jurisprudence in light of first principles. If one believes that the people are to serve the state, that the rights of the people are created or granted by the state, or that the security of the state itself is of paramount importance, then the right to keep and bear arms is a dangerous vehicle for subversion that must be eliminated;2 and eliminated it has routinely been in totalitarian countries.3 If one believes the opposite-that neither the people nor their rights were meant to serve the state, but that the people were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that the state was created to secure those rights-then the Second Amendment assumes awesome importance, not only recognizing one among many particular rights of the people, but also providing an independent means of preserving and enforcing those rights.5 The rights of the people are threatened by the surfeit of government as surely as by its absence. In the Constitution's ingenious mechanism of checks and balances, the Second Amendment provides an extragovernmental check on governmental power. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ultimate guarantor of all their other constitutionally recognized rights. I said as much in my unsuccessful 1996 congressional campaign,6 which was one reason I was invited to participate in BYU's symposium. Even in congenitally conservative and heavily Republican Utah, the notion that the Second Amendment not only authorizes an armed populace but implicitly recognizes a right to rebel is considered radical, at least in urban areas. And understandably so. Proponents of gun control, and those in the mass media who report on their efforts, generally ignore the Second Amendment. If they acknowledge it at all, they generally describe it as a quaint technicality which merely authorizes federal or state governments to maintain armed militias.7 As Daniel D. Polsby writes: The theory that is most often encountered by the intelligent lay public reads the words [of the Amendment) to say something like: "In order to make themselves secure, states have a right to have a well regulated militia, and Congress may not restrict state regulation of militia members' weapons." This is approximately the interpretation favored by most major newspapers' editorial writers, by gun control groups, and by a broad swath of conventional public opinion, running the partisan gamut .... 8 Even ostensible proponents of Second Amendment rights sometimes seem to be describing nothing more than a limited right to use firearms for unthreatening recreational purposes or, in extreme circumstances and as a last resort, for self-defense.9 Far from unconstitutional, circumscribing the right thus characterized in an effort to prevent the senseless carnage of drive-by shootings, juvenile gang warfare, and other high-profile violent crime apparently strikes many citizens as eminently sensible. Federal courts, to the limited extent they have considered the matter, appear to agree. Most of the very few reported decisions mentioning the Second Amendment marginalize and trivialize it, often denying that it confers any individual right at all.la II. NATURE AND MEANING OF THE RIGHT The judiciary's neglect of the Second Amendment is unfortunate because the individual right to keep and bear arms is a crucial element in the Constitution's mechanism of ordered liberty. …

The Politics of Firearms Registration in Canada

Abstract: The determination of the Canadian government to bring in universal firearms registration (the 1995 Firearms Act) has proven extremely divisive. The Firearms Act, originally introduced in parliament as Bill C-68, radically transformed the criminal code, not only by requiring all firearms to be registered, but also by drastically reducing the traditional rights of Canadians to due process. In this article, I will show that a thorough analysis of Canadian public opinion towards firearms and gun control undermines the government's claim that the public demanded more gun laws. I will argue that Bill C-68 was introduced primarily for partisan political advantage, and that, despite the Liberals’ use of sophisticated "political marketing" techniques, their strategy backfired as the gun bill hurt the Liberals more than it helped them in the 1997 federal election.

A Lawyer's Guide to the Second Amendment

Abstract: Steven H. Gunn* 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. -U.S. CONST. amend. II. I. INTRODUCTION Few subjects in American jurisprudence have produced as much work by legal scholars, so little of which is of use to practicing attorneys, as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The author learned first-hand of the volume of scholarly works on the Second Amendment when he spent an entire Saturday reading law review articles devoted to the subject only to find when the lights were turned out that he had perused less than a third of the articles written on the subject since 1980. And yet, as a practical matter, the author has never had a case in which the Second Amendment was remotely relevant and is personally acquainted with only one attorney in the State of Utah who has ever had such a case. The few attorneys who will ever see a Second Amendment case will likely fall into one of the following categories: criminal attorneys in cases where the possession of a firearm is prohibited1 or acts as a penalty enhancer; government attorneys whose "clients" seek guidance in the drafting of gun control legislation or ordinances;2 attorneys whose clients sell or import firearms;3 and attorneys representing gun rights groups whose clients wish to participate in cases testing the validity of gun control statutes and ordinances.4 This Article is intended as a brief overview for practitioners embarking on their maiden voyage aboard the U.S.S. Second Amendment. Part II of the Article outlines the debate over the individual right and collective right interpretations of the Second Amendment. Part III discusses the landmark case of United States v. Miller. Part IV examines the future of Miller in light of recent Supreme Court cases. It also considers the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to the Second Amendment and the probable analysis the Supreme Court would use if it were in fact to adopt an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Article's message can be summed up by the advice that any attorney whose client seeks invalidation of a statute on Second Amendment grounds, should be careful to avoid a contingent fee arrangement. Legal academics can pontificate endlessly, but for nearly a century the courts have shown no signs of altering a very limited Second Amendment jurisprudence. II. THE INDIVIDUAL VS. COLLECTIVE RIGHT CONTROVERSY The amount of articles and treatises dealing with the Second Amendment is testimony to the fact that its meaning is subject to disagreement. The Amendment is not a model of clarity. It is unclear what relationship the first clause-"a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"5-has to the second clause-"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."6 Indeed, the words within the clauses are also ambiguous: What do the expressions "well regulated," "Militia," "free State," and "keep and bear Arms" mean? Virtually every law review article written on the Second Amendment devotes considerable space to discussion of one or more of these expressions.7 In general, there are two major, mutually exclusive views of the Second Amendment: (1) that it guarantees an individual right to bear arms; and (2) that it protects the states from interference with their militias by the federal government (the collective right argument). Manning the barricades in the individual right camp are a majority of the contributors to Second Amendment literature, while the collective right forces consist of all judges who have written Second Amendment opinions in the last sixty years8 and a minority of the authors of books and articles on the subject.9 Given the large number of authors and publications that have dealt with the Second Amendment, it is not possible to summarize in a few sentences the shades of meaning and understanding that each author brings to the subject. …

Comment on the Recent Work of Kwon, Scott, Safranski, and Bae: No, Your Evidence Doesn't Prove What You Think it Does!

Abstract: I Introduction Kwon, Scott, Safranski, and Bae (1997, p. 41) use a cross-sectional research design to assess the effectiveness of gun control laws on firearm related deaths. According to their assessment: "The multivariate statistical regression model suggests that the existence of gun control laws indeed have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths" (p. 41). Although some gun control laws indeed might have a deterrent effect as claimed by Kwon et al., their evidence does not support this conclusion. In fact, the Kwon et al. study suffers from many methodological flaws and this renders any substantive conclusion impossible. Most of what is reported by Kwon et al. can be attributed to methodological artifacts. Furthermore, the authors omit the mention of a large number of published books and articles about the relation between gun control laws and violence. Previous Research The authors in this study are simply wrong when they state, "In spite of charged emotional debates and passage of numerous laws and regulations, no empirical studies have been done to evaluate the effectiveness of gun control laws in this country. The debate on the Brady Bill could have been better informed by scientific research" (p. 41). At the time this article was published in the AJES, there were at least forty-five empirical studies that evaluated the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents, the bulk of which suggest that gun laws have no impact on rates of violence (Kleck 1991, pp. 251-255, 302-303, 390-392; Kleck, 1995). More specifically, Kleck and Patterson (1993) completed a Study that evaluated the effectiveness of nineteen gun laws at both the state and city level; they found that most gun control restrictions have no net effect on violence rates. Criminologists on both sides of the gun control debate have cited the Kleck and Patterson study widely, demonstrating a technically more sophisticated research methodology. Kwon et al. compare their results to a study conducted by Mauser and Holmes (1992). They then erroneously inform their readers that the Mauser and Holmes study found a deterrent effect for the 1977 Canadian gun law on homicide rates. In fact, Mauser and Holmes (1992) stated in their conclusion, "The results are consistent with the findings of previous studies that the 1977 Canadian firearms legislation did not have a significant effect on homicide" (p. 613). III Which Gun Laws were Evaluated? The authors claim to examine the effectiveness of gun control laws prior to the passage of the Brady Bill in 1992. Unfortunately, they do not make clear which laws they attempt to evaluate. Instead the authors state, "The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of laws and regulations prior to the passage of the Brady Bill in 1992. A multivariate statistical technique is proposed to establish the relationship between the number of gun related deaths by states and sets of determinants including state laws and regulations on firearm use" (p. 42). This passage suggests that all current state gun law statutes prior to the passage of the Brady Bill in 1992 were to be evaluated. As of 1990 there were at least nineteen different types of gun laws in the United States ranging from gun registration requirements to assault weapon and handgun bans (Kleck and Patterson 1993, p. 262). However, Kwon et al. focus on only three types of gun laws: those requiring (1) background checks, (2) licensing requirements, and (3) mandatory waiting periods. IV Tests of Statistical Significance The most serious problem with this work is the authors' disregard for tests of statistical significance. Kwon et al. state, "According to the model, states with gun control laws had almost 3 fewer deaths per 100,000 than states without any such laws. The relationship, however, is not statistically significant" (p. 46). Kwon et al. may have misunderstood what significance tests mean. …

Is the Second Amendment Finally Becoming Recognized as Part of the Constitution? Voices from the Courts

Abstract: Sanford Levinson* As every constitutional lawyer knows, the "working matter" of constitutional law scarcely embraces the entirety even of the notably short United States Constitution. No contemporary lawyers concern themselves with letters of marque and reprisal1 or the quartering of troops in private homes.2 To a significant extent, what counts as "working matter" is a function of Supreme Court decisions. For example, litigation based on the "privileges or immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment3 basically came to an end following the evisceration of that Clause in the aptly named Slaughterhouse Cases.4 For most practicing lawyers, the Second Amendment5 is similarly absent from their professional radar screens, not least because the Supreme Court has basically ignored, at least since its 1939 decision in United States v. Miller,6 the fact that it exists as part of the text of the Constitution that is presumably authoritative for the Court. As I have written elsewhere, "[t]he Supreme Court has almost shamelessly [and shamefully] refused to discuss" the meaning of the Second Amendment.7 Although, no doubt, this judicial silence triggers most dismay among those who view themselves as "pro-gun," the most prominent of which are members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the dismay should also be felt even by thoughtful proponents of gun control. The NRA, of course, is dismayed by the standard interpretation of Miller, that Congress has plenary power to regulate guns,8 which it views as a profoundly wrong reading of the Constitution (and perhaps of Miller itself) that ought to be corrected as soon as possible. It is, presumably, similarly upset by the fact that the Second Amendment is one of the very few parts of the Bill of Rights that the Court has most definitely not been treated as "incorporated" against the States, even though the last full consideration of the application of the amendment to the States took place in 1875, long before the Court incorporated any part of the Bill of Rights against the States.9 But even proponents of gun regulation ought to recognize that our polity has been poisoned by blithe dismissal by members of the legal elite-or at least that portion represented in most law schools and on the federal judiciary-of arguments made by pro-gun citizens, who might justifiably feel that they are treated as marginalized figures whose arguments are almost literally beneath notice. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is insulting to treat Miller as the "last word" in interpreting a part of the Bill of Rights, given the conceptual revolutions that have occurred relative to almost all other parts of the Bill of Rights since 1939.10 I dare say that no other 1939 case (or, even more certainly, no other case written by the egregious Justice McReynolds), is relied on so often by political liberals as providing a definitive statement about an important constitutional norm. The point of my own Essay, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, as I have tried on occasion to explain to journalists who want me to take a strong substantive position, is that this wooden reliance on Miller, coupled with a refusal to confront seriously the arguments made by such thoughtful opponents of federal regulation of guns as Senator Orrin Hatch, is fundamentally disrespectful.11 Part of what "due process" involves is a genuine dialogue with the citizenry, by which courts evidence a willingness to listen to, even if they do not necessarily agree with, arguments about issues that go to the heart of our constitutional polity. One should not be naive enough to believe that the Court would really be able to settle the issue of guns in American society were it to take a case and render a decision, any more than it has stilled the debate about abortion, affirmative action, or any other major issue that divides our polity. But at least with full ventilation of the various arguments, the losers might feel that they were finally being taken seriously. …

Death by injection

Abstract: On the subject of the death penalty, opinions vary as much as on other controversial subjects, such as abortion, gun control, or welfare for the indigent. Over the past few months I have informally polled friends and acquaintances and found the most diverse and often quite passionate opinions. On the whole, however, my findings bear out the earlier national formal polls: the majority of Americans, over 60%, support the death penalty. Supporters will admit that theoretically mistakes could occur, but point out that the long delays between sentencing and executions make this quite unlikely. They say that the death penalty has been imposed mostly for particularly heinous crimes against children and old ladies, for rape, or for mass murderers, …

Halberstam v. Daniel and the Uncertain Future of Negligent Marketing Claims against Firearms Manufacturers

Abstract: Criminal misuse of firearms is a widespread social problem in America. Each year, more than 600,000 violent crimes involving firearms are reported in the United States. Gun murders have surpassed car accidents as the leading cause of unnatural death in New York, California, and Texas. As a result, many crime victims and their families have turned to the tort system seeking compensation for their losses.Since the early 1980s, victims and their families have filed dozens of lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for their role in making weapons widely available for criminal misuse. To date, none of these lawsuits has been successful, and only one case has ever reached a jury. That case, Halberstam v. S.W. Daniel, Inc., signals the uncertain future of tort claims against firearms manufacturers by crime victims.

The Brady Handgun Prevention Act and the Community Protection Initiative: Legislative Responses to the Second Amendment?

Abstract: Orrin G. Hatch* I. INTRODUCTION I want to extend my thanks to the Federalist Society at the J. Reuben Clark Law School for inviting me to share some thoughts on the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms."1 The primary federal response I will analyze is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,2 (Brady Act) named for antigun lobbyist Sarah Brady.3 The Brady Act, by-in-large, requires a waiting period of five state government business days before the purchaser takes possession of the firearm.4 During this waiting period, the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) must make a "reasonable effort" to determine if a buyer is prohibited from buying a handgun.5 States are exempt from the five-day waiting period if they have their own laws requiring a records check before a handgun purchase.6 The constitutionality of the Brady Act recently went before the United States Supreme Court.7 At oral argument, it was maintained that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment because it requires state officials to enforce federal law and, thus, treats the states as mere administrative appendages of the federal government.s The Court seemed to agree and held that the federal government can not "commandeer" state officers.9 By the terms of the statute, the Brady Act will expire on November 28, 1998.lo Undoubtedly, anti-gun members of Congress will seek to extend the life of the bill. Therefore, it is still important to analyze the Brady Act provisions both to assay the philosophical underpinnings of the Act and to suggest a better approach. I will then focus my remarks on a specific congressional response to protecting the Second Amendment, the Community Protection Initiative of 1997.ll In essence, this Initiative allows qualified current and former state and local law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm nationwide, notwithstanding state law.l2 The Initiative also provides for advance congressional approval for states to enter into interstate compacts for the recognition of each other's laws allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons.l3 My firm belief is that implementation of this Initiative will both enhance the Second Amendment and reduce crime. Indeed, protection of the "right to keep and bear arms" and reduction of crime are mutually reinforcing goals. This conclusion is supported by a recent July 1996 study done under the aegis of the University of Chicago.l4 This "mutually reinforcing" belief runs counter to the gestalt of the politically correct, who cry that firearm possession is a root cause of crime-a position that is increasingly intellectually unsupportable. It is my conclusion that the Brady Act is symptomatic of pervasive federal gun control programs that reflect the ideology of the left and of gun control interest groups, and yet does precious little to reduce crime or keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Gun control today has taken on the mantra of almost religious zealotry. The liberal dominated national media has fostered this ardor to the point where many in the public believe that private ownership of firearms is a major cause of violent crime and the primary reason why the United States' homicide rate is higher than other industrialized nations.l5 The White House propaganda machine, which is perfectly described by the maxim as being "seldom right, but never in doubt," has also promulgated this belief.ls Nevertheless, the underlying assumption-that there is an ironclad correlation between the availability of firearms, especially legally obtainable firearms, and the rise of violent crime-is patently false. Accordingly, we should not be surprised to learn that the effects of implementing many gun control programs, such as the Brady Act, have been disappointing at best and often counterproductive. II. THE BRADY VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT The Brady Act is a good case for testing the anti-Second Amendment paradigm of gun control and left-leaning groups; to wit: that even lawful possession of firearms is a major cause of violent crime. …

Teaching the Meaning of the Second Amendment: A Brief Note on Recent Research

Abstract: Over the last twenty-five years, gun control has become an issue that refuses to go away. Because it is tied into the Bill of Rights, the controversy takes on the added heat of constitu tionalism. While it is not the purpose of this piece to argue the issue one way or the other, those of us in the teaching profession must be up-to-date on the emerging scholarly arguments concerning the Second Amendment when we are teaching the Bill of Rights. Regardless of one's personal views on the topic of gun control, we owe it to our students to be familiar with the Second Amendment's current

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Light of Thornton: The People and Essential Attributes of Sovereignty

Abstract: Few people think about gun control and term limits in the same way. They generally favor one or the other, but not both or neither. The thesis of this Article, however, is that the two concepts are connected - or at least that the Framers of the United States Constitution would have found a connection between the two - and that the connection between the two affects the way we should think about the subjects.This Article asserts that the two concepts are related because both gun control and term limits can infringe on the right of the people as ultimate sovereign to control the government entities created to carry out the sovereign will - term limits, by interfering with the people's right to choose their representatives in the national lawmaking process; gun control, by interfering with the people's right to use force, if necessary, to resist efforts to wrest control of sovereign authority from the people. This Article maintains that because the two concepts are thus related, the basic theories, principles, and reasoning used to determine the constitutional legitimacy of one should be relevant to the constitutionality of the other.Structural constitutional limitations that prevent state infringement on the sovereign right of the people to choose their representatives should also prevent infringement on the sovereign right of the people to use force to prevent tyrannical misuse of governmental authority. This Article attempts to demonstrate the validity and implication of this thesis by showing that the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton concerning the constitutionality of state-imposed term limitations for congressional elections provides some interesting insights into the scope of protection that should be given to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Part I explains the reasoning of both the majority and dissent in Thornton and discusses how that reasoning is relevant to the debate concerning the right to keep and bear arms. Part II then explores how several key issues in the Second Amendment debate would be resolved if viewed in light of Thornton. Part II concludes that application of the majority's reasoning in Thornton supports the position that the Constitution protects the people's right to keep and bear arms from both federal and state infringement. Moreover, viewed in light of Thornton, the right to keep and bear arms is both a collective and an individual right--broader than most gun control advocates and many scholars contend, but narrower than those on the opposite end of the issue have argued. Finally, consideration of the right to keep and bear arms in light of Thornton suggests that more may be at stake in the recent discussion about the continued relevancy of this right in today's society than has been appreciated up until now. If, as this Article suggests, the right to keep and bear arms is an essential attribute of sovereignty, there are legal and policy arguments counseling against its wholesale abandonment that have yet to be addressed by those who advocate that position. Those arguments raise issues warranting extensive consideration and discussion in our modern society.

Ideological and civil liberties implications of the public health approach to guns, crime, and violence

Abstract: Public health advocacy for severe gun control and gun prohibition has become an increasingly important part of the firearms policy debate. In this article, Raymond Kessler analyzes, from a critical or Marxist perspective, the ideology that underlies anti-gun public health campaign.

`If not us, who?'

Abstract: In the October issue of AAP News, there is a letter from Dr. Madrigal-Dersch responding to the AAP9s emphasis on gun control legislation. In this letter, Dr. Madrigal-Dersch criticizes the AAP9s focus on "... the hysterical outcry against guns," and in the end claims that the focus on gun control is "... outside the pale of pediatric practice." I personally cannot think of an issue that is more relevant to pediatric practice than gun control. Firearm-related injuries are the second leading cause of death in pediatrics, and a child dies in the United States every 1½ hours from a hand-gun.1,2 No amount of emphasis that the American Academy of Pediatrics places on gun control can be considered to be excessive.