According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal victimizations occurred in 1993, including 4.4 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Of the victims of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
In 1993, the FBI's "Crime in the US" estimated that almost 2 million violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault were reported to the police by citizens. About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and agravated assaults were committed with firearms. Murder was the crime that most frequently involved firearms; 70% of the 24,526 murders in 1993 were committed with firearms.
According to the NCVS, 25% of the victims of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault in 1993 faced an offender armed with a handgun. Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns.
The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that in 1993, 57% of all murders were committed with handguns.
The 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates found that violent inmates who used a weapon were more likely to use a handgun than any other weapon; 24% of all violent inmates reported that they used a handgun. Of all inmates, 13% reported carrying a handgun when they committed the offense for which they were serving time.
Although such statistics indicate that most crime is not committed with guns, they do show that most gun crime is committed with handguns. Whether strict gun control measures are the appropriate means to significantly reduce these statistics and whether such measures should be used as a method to combat crime continues to be debated. Such opposing views are summarized here, along with important legal issues, which have invoked many such arguments in favor of and in opposition to gun control.
However, the self-incrimination argument ultimately failed with the Gun Control Act of 1968 , which was established to keep firearms from those not legally entitled to possess them due to age, criminal background, or incompetence. Furthermore, it was enacted to make state firearms laws more effective by channeling interstate commerce in firearms through federally licensed businesses and confining firearms transactions by nonlicensees to their state of residence. In regards to the self-incrimination argument, Congress rewrote the provision by only requiring lawful possessors of firearms to register. The Supreme Court then ruled that the Act no longer violates the privilege against self-incrimination.
This case is moving to revive state's rights and to revive the 10th Amendment as limit on the power of Congress to regulate the states. In 1995, the US Supreme Court declared another gun law, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which banned guns within 1,000 feet of schools, unconstitutional. The Court held that the States, not Congress, have the authority to enact such criminal laws. If the Court's ruling in the Brady case, which is expected to be decided this summer, supports the challenge, certain provisions of the Bill will be wiped out.
The Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 was introduced in the Senate in February 1994 to promote the safe use of guns and to reduce gun violence. It included the requirement of a state license to receive the transfer of a handgun; the prohibition of a firearm to or possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a violent crime or subject to a protection order; and the prohibition of transfer of firearms or ammunition to or possession of firearms or ammunition by a juvenile. In May, 1994 another gun control measure was signed into law by President Clinton, the Public and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which included a restriction on the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.
Recently, after the shooting spree in February 1997 at the Empire State Building, President Clinton signed an order that tightens restrictions on gun buyers, including foreigners. New York's law already requires a finger-printing, a criminal and psychological record check, and a good conduct certificate for resident aliens. Also, in New York City, immigrants must be residents for seven years before they are eligible to buy a gun. Among Clinton's proposals for stricter federal gun licensing requirements, which, he says, are intended to protected the American people from gun violence are: prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns; requiring proof of residency, including a photo I.D. and a utility bill in the buyer's name; making "cop killer," or teflon-coated, armor piercing bullets illegal; and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal officials. Congress has not yet acted on this legislation. In the meantime, on April 21, 1997, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued residency requirements for persons acquiring firearms as Clinton proposed. This is a temporary regulation in which purchasers of firearms must provide proof of their state of residence, while non-citizens must provide proof of residency, with documentation, such as utility bills, lease agreement, and photo identification.
Measures to control firearms, such as those above, may be replaced in late 1998 when a new federal instant background check mechanism is expected to be put into place.
The most argued view by gun control opponents is the idea that it infringes individuals' right to bear arms. They maintain that the Constitution simply gives them the right to own firearms; firearms that they can use for their personal self-defense.
The alternative is that the Amendment guarantees to the states a right to continue to maintain organized militias, as in the National Guard, free from federal interference. This stance, taken by many including the ACLU, which claims to be neutral in the gun control debate, is referred to as the "states' right"view. They believe that the Second Amendment does not confer to an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration (ACLU, 1996).
The Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment (U.S. v. Miller-1939) states that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preserevation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected (ACLU, 1996).
In his 1995 State of Union Address, President Clinton assured the American people who believe they have a constitutional right to own firearms that when he signed the 1994 measures into law (Brady bill and the ban on assault weapons), "[t]he Members of Congress who voted for that bill and I would never do anything to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms to hunt and to engage in other appropriate sporting activities (1995)."
Anti-gun control individuals' view is that when law abiding people carry concealed handguns, it deters violent crimes and does not produce accidental deaths. They argue that the threat of citizens carrying weapons deters criminals. Moreover, they believe that concealed handguns have the greatest deterrent effect in areas with the highest crime rates because the criminal is unable to tell whether the victim is armed; in areas where concealed carry is allowed, criminals tend to turn to property crime rather than violent crime involving people.
According to a University of Chicago study from 1977 to 1992, allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and produces no increase in accidental deaths. This study also mentions discrepancies in the literature about the frequency of private firearms being used for self-defense. For example, the National Crime Victimization Survey found that there was 80,00 to 82,00 defensive uses of guns during assaults, robberies and household burglaries each year. Other surveys found that such firearms are used in self-defense up to two and a half million times each year, with 400,000 of these defenders believing that using the gun almost certainly saved a life. (Lott and Mustard,1996).
Discrepancies such as these found throughout the literature and are utilized to each sides' advantage in the gun control debate.
Besides arguing that guns deter crime, as stated above, anti-gun control activists, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), maintain that there is no such proof of crime reduction due to gun control. They contend that we cannot compare our country to other countries because of differences in each nation's collection of crime data and political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic differences. Rather, they further argue that high crime rates in the United States can be attributed to flaws in the federal and state criminal justice system.
Still, others feel, whether pro- or anti-gun control, that we should look into the root of the crime problem, such as social issues, to efficiently reduce it.
According to the General Social Survey, in which respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before purchasing a gun, public opinion hasn't changed significantly over the past twenty years. The survey results indicate that the majority of individuals favor strict gun control measures. During the years that the survey was administered, between 1972 and 1994, respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before purchasing a gun. In 1972, 73% favored, while 28% opposed. In 1994, 79% favored and 21% opposed. Throughout the years, the percentage in favor ranged from 71% to 82%, while those who opposed ranged from 18% to 30%.
Public opinion polls corroborate the earlier findings. Three polls conducted by Louis Harris and Associates in 1971 and 1972 found similar results, with the majority favoring gun control. Respondents were asked if they favor or oppose a system of strict gun control measures under which every gun a person buys would have to be registered. In January of 1971, the poll found that 66% favored and 30% opposed. In October of 1971, 73% favored and 22% opposed. In June of 1972, 71% favored and 26% opposed.
Although different issues of gun control are questioned in these polls, the results still indicate that the majority favors gun control measures. However, the percentage in support isn't as high in recent studies as in earlier studies (although this can be attributed to the different questions used). For example, according to an ABC News/Washington Post nationwide poll in May 1996, 63% of the respondents said that the government has not gone far enough to control gun ownership, while 24% said gone control has gone too far. Furthermore, the results indicated that 69% support the federal law banning the sale of most assault weapons, while 30% oppose the ban.
Another poll by Louis Harris and Associates, which addresses issues relating to firearms control, was conducted from March 21 to April 1, 1997 on-line. Although the response rate was low, the results indicate that the majority, with numbers similar to the above 1996 poll, is still in favor of certain firearms measures. Here, 37% favor making it legal to sell semi-automatic assault rifles, while 63% oppose. Most respondents (60%) agree that it is dangerous to allow the government to ban the sale of any kind of gun because the government will take away more and more of our rights in the future, while the remaining (40%) disagree. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (65%) agreed that it makes no sense to allow the sale of assault rifles which are designed for killing people, not just for hunting; 35% disagreed.
In conclusion, it is evident that the majority of the American people do favor strict gun control measures, but the issue continuous to be debated, both legally and politically. Opposers of gun control continue to argue for their rights to bear arms and contend that it is not an effective method to reduce crime. Gun control advocates, however, maintain that this method is extremely beneficial in the fight against crime.