# data[].attributes.body
Gun control is one of the most divisive issues in the United States and the disparities across the legal and illegal uses of firearms add complexity to this topic. Read the overview below to gain a balanced understanding of the issue and explore the previews of opinion articles that highlight many perspectives on gun regulation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gun control refers to legislation and regulations that place controls on the ownership of firearms, restrict certain types of firearms, or determine where they may be carried. In the United States, gun control is a highly controversial topic that engenders debate surrounding public safety, state and federal government oversight, and individual rights. Supporters of gun control seek tighter restrictions on the sale and circulation of firearms to decrease the high incidence of gun-related violence and deaths in the United States, while opponents argue they have a constitutional right to own and bear firearms.

Data from 2020 showed there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States, as reported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Among firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2020, about 54 percent were suicides and about 43 percent were homicides. Firearm-related injuries rank in the top five causes of death for United States citizens up to age sixty-four.

Assault by firearm accounts for 70 percent of nonfatal firearm-related injuries, while unintentional injury accounts for twenty percent. The vast majority of victims (86 percent) are male.

Many Americans support the right to bear arms but also believe that the government has the right to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety. Though there are differences along party lines, a 2021 Pew Research poll found that 53 percent of Americans believe gun control laws should be more strict, and 14 percent believe they should be less strict. Gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), aim to prevent new gun control legislation and, if possible, roll back existing legislation. In the late twentieth century, the NRA began to wield significant political influence at the national and state levels, especially among conservative politicians. In response, gun control advocacy organizations such as Brady, Giffords, and Everytown for Gun Safety have worked to enact legislation designed to better regulate gun ownership, such as requiring waiting periods, background checks, gun permits, gun safety training, and restrictions on the possession of assault weapons.

Pros and Cons of Banning Assault Weapons

Pros
Though many gun rights proponents state guns are necessary for self defense and hunting, such activities do not require the efficiency and firepower of automatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Assault weapons are known to be capable of injuring and killing large groups of people in mass shootings.

Most Americans support a federal ban on military-style assault weapons. For politicians in many jurisdictions, supporting such legislation would reflect the will of the people.

While the accidental discharge of a firearm always carries the risk of injury, the accidental discharge of an automatic weapon can result in much greater damage.

Cons
Banning any type of firearm would be interpreted by some as a violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Because federal law forbids the importation of foreign-made assault weapons, all such weapons sold legally are manufactured domestically, thus helping local economies and encouraging further innovation. A federal assault weapons ban would have minimal impact on gun deaths, as the majority of gun deaths are self inflicted and do not involve automatic weapons.

The Second Amendment

The right to keep and bear arms is included as the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights ratified on December 15, 1791. It 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." The precise meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment have been subjects of frequent debate in the early twenty-first century. At the time it was enacted, each state maintained a militia composed of ordinary citizens who served as part-time soldiers to protect settlers on land contested by Native Americans and defend against any attacks by foreign entities, some of which still held territories later claimed by the United States. In addition, some of the authors of the Second Amendment feared the federal government would use its standing army to force its will on the states and intended to protect the state militias' right to take up arms against the federal government.

Opponents of gun control interpret the Second Amendment as guaranteeing individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms. They assert the amendment protects the rights of the general population because colonial law required every household to possess arms and every white male of military age to be ready for self-defense and military emergencies. Therefore, by guaranteeing arms for the militia, the amendment simultaneously guaranteed arms for every citizen. Opponents of gun control further maintain the term "right of the people" in the Second Amendment holds the same meaning as it does in the First Amendment, which guarantees such individual liberties as the freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

Proponents of gun control debate some of these interpretations and argue that much has changed since the amendment was written. Some twenty first-century gun control supporters argue the amendment was meant to protect only a state's right to arm citizens for the common defense, not private citizen's rights to possess and carry any firearm in any space. They also argue that, according to the amendment, such militias were "well regulated," meaning they were subject to state requirements concerning training, firearms, and periodic military exercises.

Major Legislation and Court Cases in the Twentieth Century

The US Congress has created laws regarding gun regulations and the Supreme Court has ruled on several cases. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was the country's first major federal gun control legislation. The law required the registration of certain firearms, imposed taxes on the sale and manufacture of firearms, and restricted the sale and ownership of high-risk weapons, such as machine guns. The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 provided additional regulations, requiring federal licenses for firearm manufacturers and dealers and prohibiting certain people from buying firearms. The Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Miller (1939) upheld the NFA and set a precedent that the right to bear arms applied to citizens in active, controlled state guard or militia units.

The next major piece of federal firearms legislation was the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, passed in the wake of the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The GCA expanded both the NFA and the FFA. The law ended mailorder sales of all firearms and ammunition and banned the sale of guns to minors, felons, fugitives from justice, people who use illegal drugs, persons with mental illness, and those dishonorably discharged from the armed forces. The Supreme Court bolstered controls when it upheld New Jersey's strict gun control law in Burton v. Sills (1969) and the federal ban on possession of firearms by felons in Lewis v. United States (1980).

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), however, eased many GCA restrictions. Opponents of gun control lauded FOPA for expanding where firearms could be sold and who could sell them but continued to object to prohibitions on the manufacture and possession of machine guns for civilian use. In 1989 the administration of President George H. W. Bush announced a permanent ban on importing assault rifles. With passage of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (also called the Federal Assault Weapons Ban), Congress banned the manufacture and sale of specific assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 passed as an amendment to the GCA. The Brady Act addressed several key concerns of gun control proponents by requiring a five-day waiting period for all handgun sales, during which a background check would be run on all prospective purchasers. This provision expired in 1998 and was replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a database used to verify the eligibility of a buyer to possess a firearm.

Legislation and Court Cases in the Early Twenty-First Century After several victims and families of victims of gun violence and others sued gun manufacturers and dealers whose weapons were used to commit a crime, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005. The first act limited the liability of gun manufacturers and dealers when their firearms were used in crimes. The second act required anyone licensed to transfer or sell firearms to provide gun storage or safety devices. During his 2020 campaign for president, Democratic candidate Joe Biden supported repeal of the PLCAA.

Congress enacted the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2007. It was meant to improve failures in the NICS system that allowed a shooter to acquire a gun despite a disqualifying mental health status which was not submitted to NICS by the state of Virginia. He killed thirty-two people and himself on a Virginia college campus.

Gun rights proponents have used legislation as well as the federal courts to challenge gun restrictions. The US Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from making it illegal for private individuals to keep loaded handguns in their homes. It was the first Supreme Court decision to explicitly rule that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The Court's decision also clarified that the Second Amendment allows for limits on the types of arms that can be kept and how they are used. The Heller decision has been used as the basis for several city, county, and state bans on assault weapons and specific arms such as the AR-15 rifle.

State and local laws regarding licensing, registration, and possession of firearms vary widely. For instance, in some states a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public is only issued if the applicant demonstrates a need and is found to have the capacity to safely and responsibly handle firearms. In other states a concealed carry permit is guaranteed to any citizen legally allowed to own a weapon. As of January 2022, twenty-one states allowed concealed carry without a permit. Several courts have used the Heller decision as a basis to allow concealed carry of firearms.

Loopholes in Legislation

Gaps in legislation can enable people to obtain guns who may not otherwise meet the legal requirements for purchase. The background check requirement, for example, can be avoided by purchasing firearms from an unlicensed seller who does not perform these checks. While referred to as the "gun show loophole," such sales can take place elsewhere, including online. Temporary loans of firearms are typically allowed as are transfers of weapons that are inherited or given as gifts. While unlicensed gun transfers are acceptable within one's own state, interstate sales are prohibited.

Federal law and some states allow juveniles to purchase long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, from an unlicensed firearms dealer. Child safety advocates have long campaigned for federal legislation that would raise the minimum age to own any type of firearm and have also called for regulations aimed at preventing children from accessing guns in the home.

An amendment passed in 1996 known as the Lautenberg Amendment prevents people who have been convicted of domestic abuse or are the subject of a protective order prohibiting contact from owning guns. However, abusers who are not a parent, guardian, or legal spouse to their victims face no such restrictions. This gap has become known as the "boyfriend loophole."

Underreporting and underfunding have contributed to the NICS database lacking substantial data in many categories. Lapses in NICS reporting resulted in multiple instances of sales of weapons to unauthorized persons who then used the weapons to commit crimes. For example, a former member of the US Air Force legally purchased a firearm and killed twenty-six people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Following the shooting, the Air Force acknowledged that they failed to report the shooter's military courtmartial conviction for domestic violence to civilian authorities. In response, Congress passed the Fix NICS Act of 2017 to penalize federal agencies that do not meet NICS reporting requirements.

In 2015 a gunman shot and killed nine Black worshippers at a Charleston, South Carolina, church. Authorities later discovered the perpetrator had purchased the murder weapon while still undergoing a background check. Sellers are allowed to give a buyer the weapon if the check takes more than three days. The House of Representatives passed a bill in 2021 to extend background checks from three days to ten days, allowing more time for a full check to be completed. Known as the "Charleston loophole" bill, as of January 2022 the Senate had not voted on the legislation.
Critical Thinking Questions

Do you interpret the text of the Second Amendment to allow for an individual or a collective right to own weapons? Explain your reasoning.

Do you agree with Supreme Court rulings establishing that the Second Amendment allows for certain gun control measures? Why or why not?

In your opinion, are existing gun control regulations sufficient to ensure public safety? What other types of measures, if any, do you think are needed, and why?

Twenty-First-Century Approaches to Gun Control

Several mass shootings occurred during the presidency of Barack Obama, including the murders of twenty-seven children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012 and forty-nine people at a Florida nightclub in 2016. Congressional inaction led Obama to issue executive orders that expanded background checks to cover firearms sold at gun shows and online, sought more federal agents to process background checks, advocated greater use of smart-gun technology, and required states to provide more information on people disqualified from purchasing guns. The last order was rescinded by the subsequent Donald Trump administration.

The largest mass shooting in US history, in which sixty people were killed in Las Vegas in 2017, and the February 14, 2018, shooting of fourteen students and three staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, renewed debate over access to assault weapons. Student survivors of the massacre joined other gun control advocates in calling for reform. On March 9, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act was signed into law in Florida. The law placed some limits on gun sales while expanding resources for law enforcement and safety personnel. On March 24, a group of survivors and student activists organized a nationwide school walkout alongside the March for Our Lives to voice their demands for gun control legislative reform. An estimated one to two million people participated.

Leading up to the 2020 elections lobbying organizations and political groups again invested large amounts of money in political campaigns aimed at electing candidates favorable to their stance on gun control. For example, the NRA gun rights lobbying group alone spent approximately $28.5 million dollars to back the political campaigns of Republican candidates during the 2020 election cycle. Gun control groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords collectively spent about $21.6 million in support of Democratic candidates in 2020.

In 2021, with Congressional action on gun control unlikely, President Joe Biden also issued a series of executive orders. Biden's orders focused on regulating specific types of firearms and gun modifications; funding research on firearms trafficking in the United States; and encouraging states to pass "red flag" laws. Red flag laws allow for the temporary removal of firearms from a person identified as a potential danger by law enforcement or family members, who can petition for a court order. Biden's executive orders also sought to ban sales of firearms bought through private sellers online and assembled at home. Referred to as "ghost guns," these firearms do not have serial numbers and are untraceable.

Gun control advocates were heartened by Biden's nomination of David Chipman to head the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Chipman's nomination was withdrawn, however, following political opposition from gun rights organizations over Chipman's past work with gun control organizations Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2022 Gale, a Cengage Company
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
"Gun Control." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2022. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999212/OVIC?u=gale&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=76551779. Accessed 2 June 2022.
Gale Document Number: GALE|PC3010999212

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholarly Articles on Gun Control: History, Legislation & Activism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gale offers an overview of issues related to gun control, derived from scholarly sources and academic journals. Read about legislation and activism.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe this monster can only be tamed by enacting new, sensible laws relating to the ownership of guns and the type of guns that may be purchased.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The opinion article by Edward Marcus about the shooting in Branford caught my eye. I was raised in Connecticut, graduated from North Haven High School in 1968, and have many fond memories of my home and surrounding towns. I am still connected to many of these communities because my high school friends and I remain close, lifelong friends. It saddened me to read about the incident in Branford; however, I take exception to Mr. Marcus' opinion article.

He said, "I believe this monster can only be tamed by enacting new, sensible laws relating to the ownership of guns and the type of guns that may be purchased." Monster? I presume Marcus was referring to the shooter. What current federal and state firearm laws are not sensible, I ask? Did the shooter obtain his firearms legally, or did he break current laws to obtain them? Mr. Marcus implies that the monster was experiencing stress, and perhaps that is why he went on a shooting rampage. Nobody wants dangerous people to have access to firearms, but all too often gun confiscation laws do not ensure that those found mentally ill receive the care they need. Don't call for more laws that do not address the root cause of violence or allow for due process.

Mr. Marcus also said, "We need in-depth investigation of a gun license applicant, including a review of an applicant's mental health record." So, is he saying that Connecticut doesn't have strict gun laws? Has he checked Connecticut gun laws lately? State court systems, like mine in North Carolina, have furnished up-to-date mental health commitment records to the NICS, ensuring that it can do thorough checks. Has Connecticut?

I agree that laws should be enforced, "A slap on the wrist does not do it." However, we see this happening when lax prosecutors allow criminals to evade a city's gun control laws with a free pass, such as in neighboring New York City. Progressive gun grabbers say it would be a disaster for public safety if the Supreme Court were to strike down any of New York's firearms laws, yet city prosecutors do not pursue serious punishment for violating those draconian laws. How can this possibly make any sense if you have the toughest laws in the nation, but those laws are not meaningfully enforced against criminals?

Mr. Marcus wants assault weapons banned: "No one needs a weapon for self-defense or for amusement that spews out multi-dozens of bullets every minute. These weapons are made for mass slaughter and nothing else." Apparently Mr. Marcus doesn't know that "assault weapons" is a politically invented term. The "AR" in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does not stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle." The AR-15, like all semiautomatic firearms, fires only one round with each pull of the trigger. Automatic rifles were banned outside of military use by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Semi-automatic firearms have been around for over a hundred years and are owned and lawfully used by millions of law-abiding people for hunting and for target shooting. And for a small woman like me, an AR-15 is an excellent defensive firearm, as it makes me more equal.

Gun ownership doesn't cause crime. The criminal does. Mr. Marcus closes by saying, "Politicians must stop talking around the problem. Time for them to actually get the job done. Action is needed, enough talk." I wonder why he didn't do something when he was the state Senate majority leader?

Cathy S. Wright, formerly of Connecticut, lives in Chapel Hill, N.C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Pushing back against gun control arguments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The opinion article by Edward Marcus about the shooting in Branford caught my eye. I was raised in Connecticut, graduated from North Haven High School in 1968, and have many fond memories of my home and surrounding towns. I am still connected to many of these communities because my high school friends and I remain close, lifelong friends.

# data[].attributes.body
“The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women).”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution 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."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.body
“Law abiding citizens can be expected to conform to the law and obtain permits, register guns, and enroll in firearm safety courses.“

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Advocates argue that gun control laws reduce the incidence of violent crimes by reducing the prevalence of firearms. Gun laws control the types of firearms that may be purchased, designate the qualifications of those who may purchase and own a firearm, and restrict the safe storage and use of firearms. On this view, fewer guns mean less crime. Thus, there is a two-step linkage between gun control and crime rates: (1) the impact of gun control on the availability and accessibility of firearms, particularly handguns, and (2) the effect of the prevalence of guns on the commission of crimes. The direction of the effect runs from gun control to crime rates.

Conversely, because high crime rates are often cited as justifying more stringent gun control laws, high rates may generate political support for gun regulations. This suggests a causal effect running from crime rates to more stringent gun laws. But because both relationships between gun control and crime rates unfold over time, they are not simultaneously determined in the usual econometric sense. For example, crime rates in the early 1990s could be expected, ceteris paribus [other things being equal], to influence the stringency of gun control measures in the late 1990s. In turn, more stringent gun control in the late 1990s could be expected, ceteris paribus, to affect crime rates several years later. Using state-level data, this article provides estimates of these twin relationships between gun control and crime rates....

A Literature Review of Gun Control Studies

In 1993, [G.] Kleck and [E.B.] Patterson surveyed the then contemporary literature on the effects of gun controls on crime rates. As part of this larger survey, the authors review 13 studies that use state data. They observe that two studies find that gun controls reduce violent crimes, two have mixed results, and nine find no reduction in crime because of gun control.

A conspicuous characteristic of early studies is the failure to include relevant control variables....

A number of studies from the 1970s and 1980s that do control for social and economic factors find no evidence of gun control reducing violent crime rates. Using regression analysis, state data, and a vector of social and economic variables. [D.R.] Murray concludes that "gun control laws have no significant effect on rates of violence beyond what can be attributed to background social conditions." In addition, he observes that "controlling for basic social factors, the data show that gun laws have no significant effect on access to firearms" and "differing rates of access to handguns had no significant effect on violent acts." [D.] Lester and [M.E.] Murrell did find that "states with stricter handgun laws in 1968 were shown to have lower suicide rates by firearms both in 1960 and 1970. These states also had higher suicide rates by 'other means'." According to the authors, their finding for 1960, well before the l968 law, is troublesome because it casts doubt on any simple interpretation of the post-law 1970 results and suggests the desirability of constructing a more complete model that includes additional variables for explaining the variation in suicide rates across states. Finally, they observe, "No such effect of strict gun control laws was found for mortality from homicides by firearms." ...

A conundrum remains. To date, those studies that use state data and find that gun control reduces crime rates appear to be seriously flawed. On the other hand, while the majority of studies using state data do not find a deterrent effect for gun control, failure to find a statistically significant relationship is not necessarily compelling evidence that none exist. Negative findings are persuasive only if the analysis is done carefully. Among other things, careful analysis requires the use of an appropriate vector of control variables. Not only does the present study control for other factors that influence crime rates, it also uses the most detailed and sophisticated index of state gun control laws extant. This approach not only allows estimating the direct effects of a state's gun control laws on crime rates within the state but also the effect of "lax gun laws" in neighboring states.

Model One: Gun Control and Crime

The comprehensive index of state gun control, used in this study, is for 1998. To test the effectiveness of gun control in reducing crime, state crime rates for 10 categories of crime along with demographic, economic, and law enforcement data are collected for 1999 and 2001. Thus, the test is whether or not gun control, as measured by the 1998 index, has an effect on crime rates one and three years later. All crime rates are regressed against the same vector of explanatory variables including the index of gun control and a spill-in effect variable. The latter variable is included because as the Open Society Institute argues, "Very strict gun laws in one state can be undermined by permissive laws in neighboring states. When adjacent jurisdictions have different levels of gun control, the weaker law becomes the common standard."

Ten regressions are estimated for 1999 and for 2001. The endogenous variables are the overall crime rate (CR T) and rates for nine specific categories of felonies labeled: Violent, Property, Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, Burglary, Larceny, and Vehicle. Gun control is not expected to have the same degree of influence on each of these categories of crime. For example, firearms are rarely employed in cases of larceny, burglary, or, until recently, vehicular theft. However, all the major categories of felonies are included in the study so that the results for crimes in which firearms are typically used and those in which they are not can be compared....

Using state-level data and that for the District of Columbia, this study estimates both the impact of gun control on crime rates and the influence of crime rates on gun control. The measure of gun control adopted here is a comprehensive index, published by the Open Society Institute, covering 30 different facets of state gun laws, enforcement effort, and the stringency of local gun ordinances. The index weights upstream measures such as gun registration more heavily than downstream measures such as safe storage laws. It also weights regulations governing handguns more heavily than those on long guns.

Using a vector of demographic, economic, and law enforcement control variables, the empirical analysis presented here provides no support for the contention that gun control reduces crime rates. In none of the regressions for the 10 categories of crime rates in 1999 and the 10 for 2001 is the measure of gun control statistically significant. The article tests another hypothesis, namely, that lax gun control laws in neighboring states undermine the effectiveness of state gun laws. It finds no support for this hypothesis. The proxy for neighboring state gun control is never significant in any of the 20 regressions estimated.

By contrast, the article provides empirical support for the idea that high crime rates generate political support for the adoption of more stringent gun controls. Moreover, there is empirical evidence that the probability of adopting more gun regulations is positively related to the proportion of Democrats in the state legislature.

Gun Control Is Ineffective

The findings of this study that gun control is ineffective in reducing crime rates are consistent with the vast majority of other studies that use state data. Nevertheless questions remain. As [M.R.] DeZee observes, "We need to concentrate our efforts on determining why existing laws are not effective." The failure to find a statistically significant negative relationship between gun control and crime rates may be because gun control is ineffective or because, as Kleck argues, the aggregation problems attendant the use of state data could mask the potential relationship. However, several statistical results from this study argue against the latter interpretation. Many of the control variable coefficients in the 1999 and 2001 crime equations are statistically significant and have the expected sign. State data do not hide the expected relationships for these variables. The regressions using cross-section data explain a reasonably high degree of variation in crime rates across states. Moreover, state data do not mask the relationship flowing from high crime rates to the subsequent adoption of gun laws. The fact remains that no careful empirical study, regardless of the type of data used, has found a negative relationship between gun control measures and crime rates.

Assuming that gun control is ineffective, the question remains-why? The answer may be twofold. One, it might be that gun control simply does not influence the behavior of criminals in their efforts to obtain and use firearms. Law abiding citizens can be expected to conform to the law and obtain permits, register guns, and enroll in firearm safety courses. By contrast, there would be no surprise if it were found that criminals regularly violate the law by purchasing guns on illegal black markets or by stealing them.

Two, contemporary gun control measures typically attempt to influence the process of purchasing firearms at the point of sale between licensed dealers and their customers. Federal background checks, and often state background checks, waiting periods, and registration, are part of the process. But guns are long-lived capital assets. The stock of privately owned firearms in the United States is large relative to annual sales. Firearms are passed down through generations of family members. They are bought and sold, traded, parted out, and given away among friends, acquaintances, and strangers. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to constrain and regulate the transfer of firearms between non-dealer private parties. Gun control, while politically attractive because it appears to "deal directly with the problem" may in fact be a blunt instrument for reducing crime. Effective gun control may entail significant unintended consequences. Government extensive and intrusive enough to regulate all private transfers of firearms would raise significant civil liberties issues.

Books

Rami Benbenishty School Violence in Context: Culture, Neighborhood, Family, School, and Gender. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dewey G. Cornell School Violence: Fears Versus Facts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006.

Elizabeth Kandel Englander Understanding Violence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.

Laura L. Finley, ed. Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2007.

James Garbarino See Jane Hit: Why Girls Are Growing More Violent and What We Can Do About It. New York: Penguin, 2006.

Nancy G. Guerra and Emilie Phillips Smith, eds. Preventing Youth Violence in a Multicultural Society. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2006.

Darnell F. Hawkins, ed. Violent Crime: Assessing Race and Ethnic Differences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

David Hemenway Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

James B. Jacobs Can Gun Control Work? New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Steven J. Kirsh Children, Adolescents, and Media Violence: A Critical Look at the Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006.

Louis A. Knafla Violent Crime in North America. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.

Richard A. Lawrence School Crime and Juvenile Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Jack Levin The Violence of Hate: Confronting Racism, Anti-Semitism, and Other Forms of Bigotry. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon, 2007.

John R. Lott The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2003.

Paula K. Lundberg-Love and Shelly L. Marmion, eds. "Intimate" Violence Against Women: When Spouses, Partners, or Lovers Attack. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006.

John R. Lutzker, ed. Preventing Violence: Research and Evidence-Based Intervention Strategies. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2006.

Ruth D. Peterson, Lauren J. Krivo, and John Hagan The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

Michel Prum, Bénédicte Deschamps, and Marie-Claude Barbier, eds. Racial, Ethnic, and Homophobic Violence: Killing in the Name of Otherness. New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007.

Claire M. Renzetti and Raquel Kennedy Bergen, eds. Violence Against Women. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.

Harold Schechter Savage Pastimes: A Cultural History of Violent Entertainment. New York: St. Martin's, 2005.

Kathy Sexton-Radek Violence in Schools: Issues, Consequences, and Expressions. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005.

Irving A. Spergel Reducing Youth Gang Violence: The Little Village Gang Project in Chicago. Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2007.

Robert J. Spitzer The Politics of Gun Control. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2004.

R. Murray Thomas Violence in America's Schools: Understanding, Prevention, and Responses. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006.

David Trend The Myth of Media Violence: A Critical Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.

Avelardo Valdez Mexican American Girls and Gang Violence: Beyond Risk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Irvin Waller Less Law, More Order: The Truth About Reducing Crime. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006.

Franklin E. Zimring The Great American Crime Decline. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Periodicals

Bob Adams "Gun Control Debate," CQ Researcher, November 12, 2004.

Roy N. Aruffo "A 5-Year-Old in Handcuffs?" Clinical Psychiatry News, June 2005.

Beth Dalbey "The Bogeyman Is Us," Business Record, October 23, 2006.

Michael Goldsmith "Reconsidering the Constitutionality of Federal Sentencing Guidelines after Blakely: A Former Commissioner's Perspective," Brigham Young University Law Review, 2004.

Kristin A. Goss "The Missing Movement for Gun Control," Chronicle of Higher Education, October 20, 2006.

Alan M. Gottlieb "Another View: Violent Crime Rise Proves Need for Personal Protection Capability," Sheboygan Press, January 12, 2007.

Anita Hamilton "Video Vigilantes: If Parents Don't Monitor Kids' Access to Violent and Sexual Games, Should the States Do It?" Time, January 10, 2005.

Stephen Johnson and David Muhlhausen "No Silver Bullet for Youth Gangs," Washington Times, August 30, 2005.

Erica Little and Brian W. Walsh "Federalizing 'Gang Crime' Is Counterproductive and Dangerous," Web Memo (Heritage Foundation), September 22, 2006.

Erik Luna "Let Judges Do Their Job," Philadelphia Inquirer, August 9, 2004.

David L. Stadler "Zero Tolerance as Public Policy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," Clearing House, November-December 2004.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Violent Crime

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advocates argue that gun control laws reduce the incidence of violent crimes by reducing the prevalence of firearms. Gun laws control the types of firearms that may be purchased, designate the qualifications of those who may purchase and own a firearm, and restrict the safe storage and use of firearms. On this view, fewer guns mean less crime.

# data[].attributes.body
“Every day in America, guns claim 84 lives, and wound nearly 200; every year more than 30,000 people die—over 3,000 of them children and teens—and over 70,000 are injured”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

America's gun violence problem must be addressed if we are to effectively respond to the crises facing our health care system, urban communities, and homeland security. In this country, it is too easy for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons. There are only a few federal gun laws, and even those have loopholes. This leads to senseless gun deaths and injuries affecting thousands each year. We should implement stronger laws and policies that will protect our families and communities from gun violence by making it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and other prohibited persons to obtain guns.

The Problem of Gun Violence

Every day in America, guns claim 84 lives, and wound nearly 200; every year more than 30,000 people die-over 3,000 of them children and teens-and over 70,000 are injured. Firearm homicide is the leading cause of death for black men ages 15-34, and is the leading cause of death for all African Americans 15-24. Homicide represents the second leading cause of death for Hispanics between the ages of 15 and 24, 76% of which are firearm related. Estimates of direct medical costs for firearm injuries range from $2.3 billion to $4 billion, with additional annual indirect costs estimated at $19 billion.

America is the sole high-income, industrialized country that has not responsibly addressed the problem of gun violence. The firearms death rate in the U.S. is eight times higher than in other high-income countries and the rate among children under 15 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

There are effective solutions that can reduce gun violence. Beginning with the Brady Law [Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act] in 1993, the assault weapon ban in 1994, and other [Bill] Clinton administration policies, our nation experienced an historic decline in gun crime and violence. During the first ten years of the Brady Law gun homicides dropped 37%, while other gun crimes dropped 73%. However, during the [George W.] Bush years, gun crime increased as the administration and Congress weakened the Brady Law, allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, gave the gun industry special legal protection, and instituted other counterproductive policies....

Moving Forward to Prevent Gun Violence

In addition to reversing the negative legislation and policies enacted during the Bush years, the new administration and Congress should implement an affirmative agenda of legislation and regulatory reform to reduce crime and gun violence....

Extend Brady Background Checks to All Gun Sales, Including All Gun Show Sales

We agree with the [Barack] Obama transition agenda that the gun show loophole should be closed, and with attorney general nominee Eric Holder that background checks should be required for all gun sales. Our national gun policy should be "no background check, no gun, no excuses."

The Brady Law's background check requirement has been very effective at blocking dangerous people from buying guns. Through the end of 2007, more than 1.6 million prohibited purchasers-felons, the mentally ill, domestic violence abusers, and others-have been denied sales at licensed gun dealers. However, as Holder wrote in 2001:

Unfortunately, unlicensed sellers are permitted by law to sell firearms with no background check whatsoever. Millions of firearms change hands every year through this backdoor, yet perfectly legal, method-giving criminals and terrorists remarkably easy and undetectable access to weapons. This legal loophole must be closed immediately. We can no longer allow the purchase of firearms through the Internet or a newspaper ad, at a gun show or a flea market, or in any other type of sale from an unlicensed seller, without any background check or other record of purchase. The stakes are too high.

The no-check loophole is a major supply source for criminals who want guns, especially at gun shows. It is estimated that about 40% of gun sales are made by unlicensed sellers.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have taken steps to close the "gun show loophole," with several requiring background checks on all gun sales. Model legislation has worked since 1989 in California, where every gun sale must first be run through the state's background check system. Unlicensed sellers need only take their guns to a licensed dealer to run the check and complete the sale.

Background checks should be required for all gun sales.

Fully Fund the NICS Improvement Act

On January 8, 2008, President Bush signed into law the National Instant [Criminal Background] Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which provides for financial assistance to aid states in sending records to NICS and financial penalties if they fail to provide records. This law was passed after the Virginia Tech massacre, where the killer was able to arm himself because a court order that should have blocked his gun purchase was not reported to NICS. In response, some states have reviewed their records and procedures and started forwarding more records to the NICS. But more progress will be possible if Congress appropriates the funds authorized by the Act.

The NICS system was first implemented in 1998, as required by the Brady Law, to ensure that prohibited purchasers cannot buy firearms from gun dealers. However, a background check is only as good as the records it can search. Many prohibited persons are not blocked from buying guns because their records are not in NICS, including about 80-90% of relevant mental health records and 25% of felony convictions. A fully funded NICS Act should help block hundreds of thousands of prohibited buyers who are not presently stopped by the Brady Law because their names are not in NICS.

Congress should appropriate the full amount of authorized funding to assist states in submitting records of prohibited purchasers to NICS.

Close the "Terror Gap" to Deny Firearms to Terrorists

Under current law, known or suspected terrorists are not prohibited from buying or possessing firearms, unless they have already committed crimes or are otherwise barred. As attorney general nominee Eric Holder wrote in 2001, there are "numerous and chilling examples" of terrorists buying guns in America, and there are many more recent examples as well.

One solution was proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Peter King (R-NY) in the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act." Based on a Bush administration proposal, this legislation would provide the U.S. attorney general [AG] with discretionary authority to block a gun sale to a known or suspected terrorist where the AG reasonably believes that the person may use a firearm or explosives in connection with terrorism. In 2001, Holder called for background checks to include "whether the potential buyer is on an FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] or other law enforcement watch list of suspected terrorists." Incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has strongly endorsed terror gap legislation.

The "terror gap" loophole should be closed.

Prohibit Gun Possession by Violent Misdemeanants and Persons Convicted of Violent Acts as Juveniles

Criminals who have been convicted of certain violent misdemeanors are not barred from gun possession under current law. This loophole should be closed. A study found that persons convicted of violent misdemeanors were eight times more likely to be charged with subsequent firearm and/or violent crimes, and one out of every three violent misdemeanants who sought to buy handguns were arrested for new crimes within three years of buying the handgun. As attorney general nominee Eric Holder has advocated, we should also close the loophole that allows persons convicted of violent and other serious offenses as juveniles to legally purchase a weapon on their 18th birthday or later in adulthood.

A law should be enacted to bar gun possession by individuals who have been convicted of certain violent misdemeanors and by individuals who have been adjudicated delinquent for an act that would have been a violent felony if committed by an adult.

Restrict Large-Volume Handgun Sales to Reduce Trafficking

Large-volume handgun sales should be restricted as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce gun violence. Even though high-volume handgun sales facilitate gun trafficking into the illegal market, current federal law allows any legal purchaser to buy an unlimited number of handguns in a single purchase.

Gun traffickers often buy large numbers of handguns to resell to criminals. Handguns sold in multiple sales accounted for 20% of all handguns sold and traced to crime in 2000. For example, one Ohio gun dealer sold hundreds of guns at gun shows to a gun trafficking ring-including 87 handguns in a single transaction. The guns were trafficked from Ohio into New York State, where they have been used in dozens of crimes. Federal law enforcement authorities have long regarded the purchase of multiple handguns by a single buyer in a single transaction as an "indicator" that the buyer intends to traffic the guns to the illegal market. For this reason, if someone buys two or more handguns in a five-day period, federal law treats the purchase as suspect, and it must be reported to ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives].

Congress should enact a law similar to those enacted in California, Maryland, and Virginia, restricting handgun purchases to one per month per purchaser. A Brady Center [to Prevent Gun Violence] study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Virginia's law reduced crime guns trafficked from Virginia; before the law, 38% of guns originating in the Southeast and traced in the Northeast were sold in Virginia, but after the law Virginia's share was reduced to 16%. However, because gun traffickers can use new "source" states when a state law is enacted, a federal law is needed.

A federal law restricting bulk handgun sales should be enacted.

Give ATF Stronger and More Flexible Authority to Enforce the Law Against Corrupt Dealers

Legislation is needed to repeal restrictions that prevent ATF from more effectively enforcing gun laws. Almost 60% of the nation's guns traced to crime come from only about 1% of the country's gun dealers, yet ATF is severely hindered in its ability to inspect, sanction, or shut down rogue dealers. The bureau's authority to revoke dealer licenses should be strengthened and it should be given new authority to inspect dealers more frequently, temporarily suspend dealer licenses, levy civil penalties, and bring felony charges against dealers for record-keeping violations that often occur when dealers engage in off-the-books gun sales.

Weak gun laws continually prevent ATF from promptly shutting down lawbreaking dealers despite years of federal gun law violations. Restrictions enacted in 1986 as part of the gun lobby-backed Firearm Owners' Protection Act ("FOPA") placed severe constraints on ATF's ability to enforce the law, including: requiring years of repeated violations before ATF can revoke the license of a corrupt gun dealer; limiting ATF's inspection powers to a single, unannounced inspection of a gun dealer in any 12-month period; classifying serious violations of firearms record-keeping laws as misdemeanors rather than felonies; and imposing a heightened "willfulness" burden of proof for most gun law violations.

Congress should enact legislation to give ATF the authority and flexibility it needs to enforce our nation's gun laws and crack down on corrupt gun dealers.

Strengthen ATF's Ability to Crack Down on Gun Dealers Who Sell to Straw Purchasers

Under current law, dealers can be prosecuted for engaging in sales to "straw buyers" only by relying on charges of aiding and abetting a false statement by the purchaser, or for record-keeping violations that were felonies prior to 1986 but are now classified as misdemeanors. Since federal prosecutors generally do not expend their limited resources prosecuting misdemeanors, most dealers caught violating federal law usually escape criminal prosecution. The lack of criminal prosecutions of gun dealers dramatically skews the incentives when dealers are faced with gun traffickers offering cash for firearms, leading many to make the illegal sale.

Congress should enact legislation making it a felony for any licensed dealer to transfer a firearm knowing that the person completing the paperwork is not the actual purchaser.

Require Gun Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Guns

Federal law should require gun owners to report in a timely manner missing or stolen guns to federal authorities. This is needed to prevent gun owners from covering up sales to prohibited purchasers by later claiming-when those guns are traced to crime-that their guns were stolen. ATF has reported that in 88% of the firearms traced to crime, the purchaser of the gun is not the same person as the criminal from whom the gun is recovered. While some of these guns may have been stolen from gun owners, often they were sold in the criminal market. Without a reporting requirement, it is difficult to rebut a trafficker's false claim that a gun was stolen.

Federal law already requires gun dealers to report lost or stolen firearms. Several states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island, as well as the District of Columbia, require owners to report lost or stolen guns.

Federal law should require that gun owners promptly report lost or stolen guns.

Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Minimum Security Safeguards to Prevent Gun Thefts

A 2008 Brady Center analysis showed that, in 2007, more than 30,000 guns were reported missing from licensed gun dealers' shops. To prevent guns from being stolen by criminals, ATF should issue regulations requiring dealers to meet specified security standards in order to obtain, and retain, a license to sell guns. This could be done by ATF without additional legislation as part of dealer licensing regulations.

ATF should promulgate regulations requiring gun dealers to take mandatory steps to secure their inventory to prevent theft. This action can be taken without additional statutory authority.

Require Licensed Gun Manufacturers and Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Their Employees

Although convicted felons and other prohibited persons are barred from possessing or buying guns, there is no requirement that federally licensed gun manufacturers and dealers conduct background checks on employees who sell guns. To make it harder for dangerous people to get guns, prospective gun industry employees should be screened to ensure that they are not prohibited purchasers. Several states already require gun dealers to conduct background checks on employees to ensure that dangerous persons are not selling firearms, and this should be required nationwide.

ATF should promulgate regulations that, as a condition of gun manufacturers and dealer licensing, require licensees to conduct background checks on their employees. This action can be taken without additional statutory authority.

Prevent Dealers from Liquidating Their Inventory Without Background Checks After Their Licenses Have Been Revoked

Even after ATF revokes a dealer's license for violating federal law, it has allowed those dealers to transfer their inventory-frequently hundreds of guns-to their "personal collections," and then sell them. Even worse, former dealers are permitted under federal law to sell guns from their "personal collections" without conducting a Brady background check. ATF can, and should, cease this practice, and it can do so without additional legislation.

This "fire sale" loophole was exploited by former NRA [National Rifle Association of Ameria] board member Sandy Abrams, who was cited for more than 900 violations of federal gun laws at his Baltimore gun shop.

Despite Abrams's violations, ATF permitted him to transfer hundreds of guns to his personal collection when his license was revoked. Abrams continued illegally selling guns, and pled guilty in 2008 to selling an assault weapon to a criminal who shot at police officers. Similarly, ATF allowed Ugur "Mike" Yildiz to transfer over 200 guns from the shop's inventory to his personal collection after his license was revoked. Yildiz then illegally sold many of those guns, and many have been linked to violent crimes.

ATF should refuse to allow dealers whose licenses have been revoked from transferring firearms from the store's inventory to their personal collection. This action can be taken without additional statutory authority.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Laws Controlling Private Gun Ownership Will Reduce Gun Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America's gun violence problem must be addressed if we are to effectively respond to the crises facing our health care system, urban communities, and homeland security. In this country, it is too easy for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons. There are only a few federal gun laws, and even those have loopholes.