From: [bb 063] at [cleveland.Freenet.Edu] (Christopher J. Crobaugh) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Dr. Edgar Suter article Date: 13 Dec 1992 17:10:12 GMT Here is the full text of Dr. Suter's article as regards the rubbish and lies contained in many medical journals, incorrectly referred to as "research." Many of you will find it interesting, if tough reading. GUN PROHIBITION IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE - TELLING THE TRUTH? by Edgar A. Suter, MD Family Practice 5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 140 San Ramon, CA 94583 USA Abstract The AMA Council on Scientific Affairs has promulgated a policy that opposes private ownership of "assault weapons." The policy is based upon a report citing a single study that stands alone in its conclusion. The report fails to address considerable research that undermines the rationale of the prohibitionist policy. Many misperceptions are perpetuated in that report. The constitutional impediments to gun prohibition have been casually dispatched by the Council without sound support. This article presents evidence previously overlooked by the medical literature. Acknowledgments The author is indebted for their review and helpful suggestions to: Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D., Research Coordinator, National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action, Washington, DC James Boen, Ph.D., Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, Professor of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota Robert Cottrol, JD, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Rutgers School of Law, Camden, New Jersey Col. Martin Fackler, MD, Retired Chief, Wound Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman Army Hospital, Presidio, San Francisco, California Don B. Kates, Jr., LLB, Former Constitutional Law Professor, St. Louis University School of Law, Civil Rights Attorney, Novato, California Gary Kleck, Ph.D., Professor of Criminology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida The author is, however, solely responsible for the content of this paper. Any errors exist despite, not because of, the kind help of these or other reviewers. Introduction JAMA recently published a report submitted by the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs in support of banning "assault weapons." [1] A review of the authorities and references cited by the Council fails to identify the three most comprehensive compilations of "assault weapons in crime" data. [2, 3, 4] Also missing are the two most comprehensive reviews of the "guns and violence" literature, including the National Institute of Justice study. [5, 6] The Council has not addressed and, therefore, not dispatched the confounding data of these and many other readily available studies and sources. The sole datum offered in support of the policy is from a newspaper study so flawed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) disavowed the study's finding. [7] Though the Council acknowledges an individual right to firearms ownership, it has dismissed the constitutional impediments to "assault weapon" bans without analysis or authority. Comparison of the Council's few and selected sources with the many other available authorities makes it difficult to conclude that the Council conducted either a thorough or unbiased investigation. Political background Since more than 200 million firearms are distributed amongst approximately half of US households, it is difficult to credibly characterize firearms ownership as unusual or deviant and it is generally accepted that promoting prohibition of private ownership of all guns is "political suicide." For these reasons, it is reported, the attempted tactic of gun prohibitionists has been to conquer small pieces of the electorate at a time, serially stigmatizing and then banning certain types of weapons, hoping eventually to obtain their goal of total gun prohibition. [8] In support of this, one can observe that "the criminals' weapon of choice," the "bad guns" we must loathe, change more frequently than one can explain a change in criminals' weapon selection. "Undetectable plastic guns", "Saturday Night Specials", machine guns, "cop killer bullets", and, now, "assault weapons" have all been described as posing an imminent, if not actual, danger. Despite the claims, no figures supporting the assertions are offered or, if figures are offered, analysis shows the figures are more-or-less-artfully crafted. Despite more than a century of effort, [9] gun prohibitionists have unsuccessfully promoted national and state efforts to ban handguns. Notwithstanding polls alleging support for handgun bans, in 1982 voters in California rebuffed draconian handgun restrictions by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. A similar referendum failed in Massachusetts. By the 1970's and 80's liberal and feminist thinkers [10] and scholars [11] began to break ranks over the orthodoxy of gun prohibition. By 1988, even liberal politicians, such as Rep. Barney Frank, [12] had found the politics of gun prohibition to be a liability. The California Attorney General's 1988 study had determined "[assault weapons] constitute[d] absolutely no conceivable threat", so that office would not support their regulation. [13] Then, a drifter with a long criminal and psychiatric history, including multiple weapon felonies, was allowed to purchase several firearms, despite a waiting period and the background check by the California Department of Justice. In violation of federal law barring mental defectives from gun ownership, he obtained an AKM-56S rifle in Oregon and transported it to California. On January 17, 1989 Patrick Purdy turned his weapons on children in a Stockton, California school yard, killing 5 of 35 he wounded. [14] It has gone virtually unnoticed that, even when used against children, almost all of those wounded (86%) survived. No matter that even the Law Enforcement Adviser of Handgun Control Inc. (HCI), Mr. Philip C. McGuire, "agree[d] with the NRA" that "assault weapons" were not a problem; [15] no matter that a porous criminal justice system repeatedly put a dangerous and mentally defective Patrick Purdy on the street, or that the California Department of Justice allowed weapons in his hands his guns took the blame. One must grudgingly concede to the NRA that even stringent gun control failed to keep guns out of the hands of a known criminal and mental defective. Perplexingly the California Department of Justice withheld and continues to withhold its reports showing "assault weapons" have been no more than an anecdotal crime problem. Handgun Control Inc., absent supportive data, began its political campaign. The media has also put its "spin" on the issue: "It could be argued that the perception that these firearms are frequently used by criminals is attributable to media reports that selectively highlight incidents in which they have been used. One news commentator testified that reports on the use of such firearms stemmed from a conscious decision on the part of his broadcast station to influence the public." [16] Typical for media coverage of gun control issues, [17] all pretense of objectivity in the press went out the window, [18] finding us where we are today. As Mercy and Houck have called us to science in the pages of JAMA, [[19] let us examine the data available and the problems of data acquisition. The importance of defining "Assault weapons" Obtaining a consistent definition of "assault weapon" would be key to amassing and collating meaningful data pertinent to legislative and public policy considerations. By 1988, however, the California Attorney General's Office had already concluded such a definition was technically impossible. [20] Data acquisition and analysis have also been hampered by prejudice and disinformation. Consider the prejudice in the remarks of Dr. Jerome Kassirer, Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine: "Data on [assault weapon] risks are not needed because they have no redeeming social value." [21] [emphasis original] One of the Council's sources, Mr. Sugarmann, seems disposed to intentionally obfuscate the issues and deceive the public: "The semiautomatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semiautomatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." [22] as does the California Attorney General's Office memorandum: "Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensic laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [assault weapon ban] would be based." [23] No functional or meaningful features or combinations of features uniquely distinguish the politically incorrect "assault weapons" from their "sporting" counterparts. Because there is no consistent definition, comparison of data from different jurisdictions is impeded. The definition of "assault rifle" As Mr. Sugarmann's strategy admits, though cosmetically similar, "assault weapons" are not the same as "assault rifles." "Assault rifles" are defined by widely accepted criteria. "Assault rifles" are capable of machine-gun-like "automatic" fire. They are designed to wound rather than kill. They fire intermediate power cartridges, more powerful than most pistols, but considerably less deadly than hunting rifles which, by definition, are designed to kill. [24, 25] In any other context, "assault rifle" is a misnomer. "Assault rifle" wound ballistics That "Assault rifles" are designed to wound rather than kill is important. Attempting to address popular misconceptions regarding their purported deadliness, Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD, the recently retired Director of the United States Army Wound Ballistics Research Laboratory, wrote: "Military bullets are designed to limit tissue disruption - to wound rather than kill. The Full-metal-jacketed bullet is actually more effective for most warfare; it removes the one hit and those needed to care for him newspaper descriptions comparing their effects with a grenade exploding in the abdomen must cause the thinking individual to ask: how is it possible that 29 children and one teacher out of 35 hit in the Stockton school yard survived? If producers of assault rifles had advertised their effects as depicted by the media, they would be liable to prosecution under truth-in-advertising laws." [26] It would seem therefore that we should question the reliability of anecdotal assertions such as: "Of the [South African] patients who were hit with one projectile [from an AK-47] in any portion of their torso, there were no survivors whatsoever. Of the patients who were hit with even a single AK-47 projectile in any extremity, 95% had to have that extremity amputated." [27] Streptococcal bacteremia and Clostridial gangrene are the common complications of any penetrating wound inadequately treated with antibiotics, necessitating amputation from the iatrogenic complication, rather than from the injury itself. [28, 29] Though described in the lay press, the author's search of the peer- reviewed literature failed to corroborate injuries such as those described by Trunkey. The literature review finds instead that "assault weapon" wounds more closely approximate handgun injuries than rifle injuries: "[M]any AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no greater damage than that produced by non-expanding handgun bullets. The limited tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton school yard is consistent with well documented data from Vietnam as well as with controlled research studies from wound ballistic laboratories." [30] Congressional testimony agrees: "It is my opinion as a court-qualified 'firearms expert' that six- (or seven-) shot hunting shotguns are more lethal at ranges under 50 yards than either the semi or full-automatic versions of the AK-47" [31] The Council perpetuates myths about "high velocity" bullets and "assault weapon" wound ballistics that have been definitively dispelled in the pages of JAMA [32] and elsewhere. [33, 34, 35, 36] The Council expresses its horror at the devastation caused by the single shock wave of a "high velocity" bullet, failing to note that the average Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy utilizes about 2,000 shock wave pulses, each of which is three times that of the "high velocity" bullet, without any evidence whatsoever of soft tissue damage. [37] The vogue of undue concern over "cavitation" in all but non-elastic tissues has justifiably passed, though without the Council's notice. When the Council cites a newsweekly interview (of a surgeon who thinks inelastic watermelons are appropriate human tissue simulants) [38] and elsewhere [39] for theories of wound ballistics repudiated in peer-reviewed literature, one must wonder whether the Council wisely or carefully selected the best scholarship available. If "watermelon wound ballistics" were valid, deceleration injury from a one foot fall would similarly crack human tissue. The public may actually be endangered more by banning less deadly weapons, handguns and "assault weapons." If handguns were unavailable, criminals have indicated they would substitute more deadly weapons (e.g. shotguns and rifles, which can be easily made concealable by using a hacksaw to make them "sawed off"), rather than less deadly weapons (e.g. knives and clubs). [40] It is a reasonable, though untested, hypothesis that the likeliest substitute for handgun-configuration "assault weapons" would be equally deadly revolvers and that the likeliest substitute for rifle-configuration "assault weapons" would be more deadly shotguns and rifles, resulting in a net increase in morbidity and mortality. The lack of definition of "Assault weapon" Even gun prohibitionists cannot agree on a definition of "assault weapons." [41] "Assault weapons" are semi-automatic and not capable of full-automatic machine gun fire (they fire a single bullet with a squeeze of the trigger rather than a "spray"). As the California Attorney General's Office has noted, they are not definable by any unique technical criteria. [42] This is one reason that legislative attempts have failed to clearly distinguish these "politically incorrect" guns from functionally identical "sporting guns" chambered in more deadly calibers. The conundrum, acknowledged by the Council, is one factor in the legal appeals to overturn the arbitrary selection of weapons in the California "Assault Weapon" Ban. [43] "Assault weapons" encompass an amorphous group of guns functionally identical to other common hunting and target rifles. [44] They inconsistently share cosmetic similarities with military weapons. The Council has not explained how cosmetic features make guns more deadly than functionally identical weapons. Is a gun more deadly by virtue of a plastic stock, a pistol grip, a durable finish, a flash suppressor, tritium night sights, or a bayonet lug? Have we a spate of drug dealers using unrusty weapons in night bayonet charges? Even the capability of accepting "high capacity" magazines is an unreliable distinction since every one of the common hunting and target rifles cited above are capable of accepting factory or after-market "high capacity" magazines. Contrary to the Council's insinuation, they are not routinely or factory equipped with "silencers" (properly, "suppressors"). Federal law (and law in 38 of the 50 states) [45] does allow private citizens to optionally equip their firearms with suppressors under the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, [46] but the Council did not offer data to support that such legal options are either widespread or a problem. Professor Kleck of the Florida State University School of Criminology examined the contradictions: "The difficulties with this political compromise [of eliminating only some semi-automatic weapons] are obvious. If semi- automatic fire and the ability to accept large magazines are not important in crime, there is little reason to regulate ["assault weapons"]. On the other hand, if these are important attributes, then it makes little crime control sense (though ample political sense) to systematically exclude from restriction the most widely owned models that have these attributes, since this severely limits the impact of regulation." [47] Skullduggery and duplicity in the public debate The first "Assault weapon" ban as a model A review of the first "assault weapon" ban shows the conceptual and technical impossibilities involved. The political skullduggery is also impressive. In 1988 in contemplation of restrictive legislation, Mr. S.C. Helsley, Acting Assistant Director of the Investigation and Enforcement Branch of the California Department of Justice, was asked by his Director "whether a definition could be formulated which would allow legislative control of 'assault rifles' without infringing on sporting weapons." His three page memorandum of October 31, 1988 summarized the 17 supporting technical documents, including data confirming the nearly non-existent use of "assault weapons" in crime, and concluded, "I do not think the necessary precision is possible." [48] "In early January 1989, the Attorney General and his Executive Staff were briefed on the difference (or lack thereof) between assault and non-assault weapons. At the conclusion of that briefing, the Attorney General, to the obvious displeasure of some of his key advisers, said that he would not support assault weapon legislation unless hard data could be developed. "With the Purdy Stockton school yard shooting in January 1989, the Attorney General immediately [without 'hard data'] announced his support for the Roberti/Roos initiatives." [49] In another memorandum, Mr. Helsley documented, "In the past 20 years, [Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement] specials agents have never been fired at by a suspect with one of the weapons listed in 12276 PC [California's 'assault weapon' ban]." [50] Described by California Assemblyman Tom McClintock as "the ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance," the ban was enacted. The weapons named by manufacturer and model number in the California Roberti-Roos "Assault Weapon" Ban of 1989 [51] were chosen on appearance, not by any forensic criteria or supportive crime data. [52] In the words of Mr. Helsley of the California Attorney General's Office three years after the ban's enactment, "Most if not all of the principal players in crafting the legislation had absolutely no knowledge of firearms. Most of the weapons on the list constitute absolutely no conceivable threat. Publication of a manual for public or law enforcement use will require that we reach some yet unreached conclusion about which weapons are covered." [53] [emphasis original] Because of this approach, because technical advice was assiduously avoided, [54, 55] the law banned guns that didn't exist, [56] named gun manufacturers that do not exist, [57] failed to ban Patrick Purdy's gun, [58] and redundantly banned certain machine guns. [59] By legislative fiat in the original law, the Encom CM-55 became an "assault weapon" - that weapon is a manual, single-shot shotgun that has the menacing feature of a pistol grip. Most damning, however, is the suppression of two statewide studies done by the California Attorney General's Office. Both the 1987 Helsley report [60] and the 1991 Johnson report [61] have shown "assault weapons" were not and are not a crime problem. Poised for a later-to-fail gubernatorial campaign and ignoring the very report he commissioned, former Attorney General Van de Kamp grandstanded in support of the proposed ban of "assault weapons." California State Senate President Pro-tempore David Roberti's Office has described how they "managed" the media throughout the legislative process. [62] For political gain, deception was perpetrated upon the Californians whose taxes paid for the suppressed studies. The ban continues to cost taxpayers at least $4.5 million per year in administrative and enforcement costs. [63] The law has been pronounced unenforceable by the current California Attorney General, Dan Lungren. [64] Why then does his office "stonewall" requests for the reports? His office received the draft report of the Johnson study on September 26, 1991, yet, the following December, in a response to a request for the report by State Senator Robert Presley, [65] Mr. Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, stated "such a document does not exist. What you refer to was a preliminary draft document not retained in the ordinary course of business." [66] Subsequently the "not retained" document has been leaked and become readily available from channels outside the Attorney General's Office. [67] The raw data of the Johnson report and caveats on its reliability are now available from the Attorney General's Office. [68] None of the vagueness, insupportability, errors, skullduggery, deception, and the resultant expensive and frightening legal pitfalls that the ban holds for law-abiding gun owners seems to trouble at least one spokesperson, Mr. Louis Tolley of Handgun Control Inc., the well-funded gun prohibitionist lobby: "We believe that if any gun dealer, manufacturer, or gun owners wants [sic] to test the law in court, they should be given every opportunity. Arrest them. Put the burden on them to prove the law is too vague." [69] This author fails to understand how the public good will be served, crime will be decreased, or lives spared by jailing or vindictively depleting honest citizens' financial resources at trial when they are simply confused by or are unsupportive of bad law that even their Attorney General's Office cannot understand. Pointedly, the massive and public civil disobedience of the California "assault weapon" ban [70] is strong evidence that otherwise law-abiding citizens are unwilling to even register their banned guns. New York City recently confiscated "assault weapons" registered in 1989. Chicago has also enacted a confiscatory ban. [71] Seeing confiscation follow registration cannot be reassuring to gun owners weighing the risk and benefit of registering guns of any kind. Old news and false claims The newly-fearsome semi-automatic weapons are of a design type prevalent since semi-automatic weapons were developed over a century ago [72] and true assault rifles have been with us for 50 years, since the Wehrmacht's 1942 introduction of the Maschinerkarabiner 42(H) and the slightly later introduction of the Sturmgewehr 44. [73] "Assault rifle" is actually a translation of the German "sturmgewehr." The Soviets followed with the introduction of the Avtomat Kalashnikova of 1947, the AK-47. The Council perpetuates the erroneous claim that these weapons are "easily converted to full automatic fire", though current law requires that all guns undergo an extensive evaluation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to prove that they cannot be easily converted to fully automatic fire. [74] A hint of the infrequency with which conversions are attempted can be gleaned from the observation that about 6 of the 4,000 guns seized annually in Los Angeles have evidence of attempted, though rarely successful, conversion. [75] The Council writes "assault weapons are meant to be spray fired from the hip", citing Handgun Control Inc. as authority. Though the Council cites Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions and Background of the Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security for explanation of gun nomenclature, the Council fails to cite pertinent portions of the Fact Sheet's definition of Assault Rifle: "designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire." [emphasis added] or its discussion of Rate of Fire: "In actual practice the number of shots that can be delivered from any self-loading weapon is limited by shooter skill, especially the need to reload The shooter's probability of hitting a target with a self-loading rifle when pulling the trigger as rapidly as possible is about 1 hit in 5 shots fired." [76] [emphasis added] A portion of the testimony of Dr. Edward C. Ezell, Curator of the National Firearms Collection, Armed Forces History Division, Smithsonian Institution, before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary is cited by the Council, but the Council missed the preponderance of his testimony nullifying the Councils imagery. [77] They also ignored his similarly invalidating open-letter to Congressman John Dingell. [78] The Council writes "a reliable estimate of how many of [the 200 million firearms owned by American citizens] are assault weapons is not available", citing another well-funded gun prohibitionist group as authority. Though the Council cites Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions and Background of the Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security for explanation of gun nomenclature, the Council fails to note either Fact Sheet #2's [79] or Dr. Ezell's educated guess [80] of 3.34million military-style semi-automatic rifles or roughly 3% of America's civilian rifles. Best evidence Since the Council acknowledges these resources, but not their full content, one can only speculate why the Council prefers to cite the partisan imagery of the well-funded gun prohibition lobby, Handgun Control Inc., rather than non-partisan scholars of the Library of Congress and Smithsonian Institution. In an attempt to support that "assault weapons" are the "weapon of choice for drug gangs," the Council cites dubious sources and concludes "Clearly the injuries from assault weapons are taxing hospital emergency departments in large urban areas." The bases for these assertions? Newspaper articles where, for example, a 5% increase in multiple gun shot cases over 10 years is assumed, but not demonstrated to be due to "assault weapons," [81] a two day survey of one emergency room in Los Angeles County is embellished by anecdotal stories from four surgeons, [82] other articles that, without any evidence at all, assume, but do not demonstrate the wounds they treat are due to "assault weapons," [83] and a "background paper" [84] from the same California Attorney General's Office that suppressed, even denies the existence of, the other two contradictory statewide studies described above. Reading the Council's sources fails to detect any peer-reviewed references for factual matters. Can anyone conclude that the council conducted a scientific or unbiased investigation? Is the Council so short of supporting facts that it must resort to hyperbole and partisan imagery? Let us look at the data. The unrepresentative nature of gun trace requests The only evidence offered by the Council that "assault weapons" are a problem of the proportion suggested by the lay media are the Cox Newspaper articles, [85] a series by two reporters who based their conclusion that 11% of crime guns were "Assault weapons" on gun trace requests of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. While the Council acknowledges, "The sample of firearms for which traces are requested is not likely to be representative of all firearms used in crime", they uncritically accept the Cox article as best evidence in the face of considerable documentation that the Cox figures exaggerate the "assault weapon" problem by a factor of three to 110, depending on locale studied and the definition of "assault weapon" used. Gun traces are not representative of the criminal prevalence of gun use any more than perusing the index of a research journal necessarily reflects the prevalence of disease. Journal indices and gun traces largely reflect a level of interest in the topic or the gun. No study corroborates the prevalence suggested by the Cox or other gun trace figures. In an unprecedented move, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms challenged the methods and conclusions of the Cox study. [86] As early as 1976 one well-known gun control advocate acknowledged the limitations of gun trace data. [87] In its Report For Congress on "assault weapons," the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress has elucidated the weaknesses that make the BATF gun trace system inappropriate for statistical purposes: "The [B]ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics "Two significant limitations should be considered when tracing data are used for statistical purposes: -- First, the firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes; -- Second, standardized procedures do not exist to ensure that officers use consistent definitions or terms in the reports of circumstances that lead to each trace request. Some trace requests do not even identify the circumstances that resulted in the request." [88] "No crime need be involved [to initiate a gun trace]." [89] Efforts to return stolen guns to rightful owners, guns "found at the residence of a suspect though the firearm itself is not associated with a criminal act" (including tax evasion investigations), and certain non-violent crimes are included amongst gun traces. [90] Even the assertion that a gun trace is related to organized crime "does not necessarily provide information on an actual violation." [91] It is axiomatic that the uncaptured guns of unsolved gun crimes cannot be represented amongst either seized weapons or traced weapons simply because the weapon is not in police hands to be tabulated or traced another factor explaining the unrepresentative nature of gun traces. The small sampling and unrepresentative nature of gun traces are clear. Of the 17,000 guns seized by the New York City Police Department in 1990, only 1000 were selected for tracing. [92] As another example among many, consider Los Angeles, a hotbed of drug gangs and violent crime, a city in which the Council's media sources would have us believe "assault weapon" crime is rampant. In 1989 "assault weapons" represented approximately 3% of Los Angeles criminal gun use, but 19% of gun trace requests. [93] Boston, too, has highlighted "assault weapons" for special trace attention. [94] The data There are limitations on other sources of data. As noted in the California Attorney General's Office caveats, the inconsistency of attempts to define "assault weapon" in the few jurisdictions that, to date, have even made the effort, makes data comparison difficult. Compilations of statistical firearms forensics data are additionally hampered by incomplete responses of varying fractions of polled agencies. Gun traces are, however, hardly the best evidence. The best and the preponderance of data currently available indicate that "assault weapons", even in the hotbeds of violent crime, account for generally 1% to 3% of crime guns [95] which approximately equals their representation amongst all guns in the USA. [96] This is shown in essentially all studies and reports first consider the local jurisdictions: Jurisdiction Year & Findings Akron [97] in 1989 - 2.0% of seized guns Baltimore City [98] in 1990 - 1.5% of seized and surrendered guns Baltimore County, MD [99] in 1990 - 0.3% of seized guns Bexar County (San Antonio), TX [100] in 1987 through 1992 - 0.2% of homicides - in 1987 through 1992 - 0.0% of suicides - in 1985 through 1992 - 0.1% of seized guns California [101] in 1987 - 2.3% of seized rifles* California [102] in 1990 - 0.9% of seized guns Chicago [103] in 1988 - 1.0% of seized guns Chicago suburbs [104] in 1980 through 1989 - 1.6% of seized guns Denver [105] in 1991 - 0.8% of seized guns Florida State [106] in 1989 - 3.6% of seized guns*(also documented declining use of "assault weapons" since 1981) - Miami in 1989 - 1.4% of homicides - Miami in 1989 - 3.3% of seized guns* Massachusetts [107] in 1984 through 1989 - 0.9% of homicides (study excluded Boston) Massachusetts [108] in 1988 - 1.9% of homicides Massachusetts [109] in 1985 through 1991 - 0.7% of all shootings (including suicides) Minneapolis [110] in 1987 through 1989 - 0.3% of seized guns Los Angeles [111] in 1989 - 3.0% of seized guns* New Jersey [112] in 1988 - 0.0% of homicides New Jersey [113] in 1989 - 0.0% of homicides New York City [114] in 1989 - 0.5% of seized guns San Diego [115] in 1988 through 1990 - 0.3% of seized guns San Francisco [116] in 1988 - 2.2% of seized guns Washington, DC [117] in 1988 - 0.0% of seized guns Washington, DC [118] in 1991 - 3.0% of seized guns * "assault weapon" broadly defined Since none of the violence- and drug-ridden urban centers display a disproportionate representation of "assault weapons" amongst crime guns, does the Council expect us to believe "spray fire" weapons are hosing down rural America? Consider national data overlooked by the Council. The 1990 FBI Uniform Crime Reports show 4% of all homicides in the United States involve rifles of any type. [119] Even in the far-fetched, hypothetical scenario that every single rifle homicide was committed with an "assault weapon," the total could not exceed that 4%. Consult the data for types of weapons used in any reported violent crime; the conclusion is inescapably the same. In a 1990 answer to the National Rifle Association's request for statistics on the use of "assault weapons", the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "noted that 12 0f 810 (less than 1.5%) deaths of law enforcement officers 'during the past decade' involved ['assault weapons'] and also discussed the dearth of information on the criminal use of these firearms" [120] Weapons used against police officers are not necessarily representative of guns generally used in crime; facing a trained and armed opponent makes a greater "stand off" distance desirable for the assailant. Rifles may, therefore, be more prevalent in such circumstance, so the "less than 1.5% potentially over-represents "assault weapons" amongst crime guns in general. Having cited the prohibitionists' estimate from the Cox study, it strikes balance to briefly note the NRA's estimate of a 0.08% prevalence of "assault weapons" amongst crime guns. [121] In researching this paper, a request for data on the use of "assault weapons" in crime was made of the research staff of Handgun Control Inc. Helpfully HCI provided copies of the Cox study (with appended analysis of "assault weapons" traced to crime) and copies of newspaper articles on "assault weapon" incidents, but, at the time of submission of this manuscript, no other data or studies. Having noted the flaws inherent to gun trace data, the author has not cited gun trace data from local jurisdictions. The author has also not cited data on "assault weapons", claims of "increased use," "significant numbers", or other vague claims when appropriate comparative or substantiating data is absent. The Council has not even acknowledged the confounding evidence, much less made an attempt to dispatch it. The Council's report flounders with its sole datum, the Cox Newspaper article. While there are important caveats in consideration of any current data and the definitive analysis of "assault weapons" in crime has yet to be accomplished, it is certainly difficult to place credence in any claim that "assault weapons" are the "criminals' weapon of choice." Of what "legitimate" use are these "Assault weapons"? Though it is rather surprising in a democracy to be asked justification of the ownership of any lawful item, convincing answers are obtained. Certain features, such as ergonomic design, durability, and high-capacity magazines, are noted amongst (though not unique to) "assault weapons" and other functionally similar weapons. Those features provoke the ire of prohibitionists, but are features that make such weapons particularly suited to popular action target competitions, hunting, home defense, defense against multiple gang assailants, and community defense and self-protection in times of riot or natural disaster. Collecting, sport, and target competition Despite their military origins, true "assault rifles" do appeal to the collector and the target shooter. An estimated 177,000 machine guns (a legal classification that includes true "assault rifles") are lawfully and rightfully owned by private citizens under the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934. [122] They are legal under state statutes in 46 of the 50 states. [123] They are collected and used virtually without incident in both formal competition sponsored by the National Firearms Association and informal target shooting. Even the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had difficulty recalling their criminal misuse. [124] "Assault weapons" are increasingly used in national and international target competitions sponsored by the International Practical Shooting Confederation, the US Practical Shooting Association, the US Government's National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM), countless local gun clubs, and the National Rifle Association (the official National Governing Board for the shooting sports in America, as such, a member of the US Olympic Committee). Those active in these competitions number over 35,000 (the number of shooters rated and ranked for purposes of DCM competitions alone) [125] - a number higher than reported criminal misusers - and these competitors consider their activity "legitimate sporting use." In an aside the Council insinuates "surplus Garands have been sold at a special price by the US Army to National Rifle Association members", but fails to tell the whole truth - the rifles are available at that special price to any target competitor participating in the DCM matches and that the sales have returned over $1 million to the US Treasury. Tax dollar for tax dollar, the DCM matches are the most cost-effective recruiting tool for the US Armed Forces. [126] The National Rifle Association (NRA) promotes gun safety and sport shooting. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is the lobbying organization for the nearly three million dues-paying NRA members. The NRA deserves innuendo for representing its members no more than does the AMA. Hunting The plastic materials and protective metal finishes used in military weapons of the last three decades have proven to be particularly durable. [127] Though initially proven on the battlefield (as sometimes occurs with advances in trauma care), use of these materials is now common amongst hunting rifles, semi- automatic and otherwise, as apropos the rough terrain and/or inclement weather associated with hunting. Representative Gary Ackerman missed the mark when he asked whether hunters needed "a Mac 10 machine gun with 30 round banana clips of armor piercing bullets to bag a quail". [128] Ranchers protecting their herds and flocks from packs of running, marauding predators and farmers protecting their crops from destructive varmints do need light and durable weapons with high magazine capacity and rapid-fire capability. Self protection and community defense The use of these weapons by citizens in community defense can be demonstrated in several instances. [129, 130, 131, 132] The higher-than-usual death toll and property damage made memorable the gripping video footage of uninsured, law-abiding Los Angeles shop owners using guns, including semi-automatic weapons, to protect themselves, their families, and their property. They turned back waves of murderous looters with determined display and, when necessary, use of their protective weaponry. [133] Reflect that riots in American cities resulting in death and damage are a regular phenomenon. No major American city can claim freedom from the problem. Does the Council have an antipathy to self-defense or community protection? As nearly a dozen national studies show, including a study by the National Institute of Justice [134] and two studies commissioned by gun-prohibitionist organizations, [135,136] guns do protect us; they are used defensively by law-abiding citizens about 606,000 to 960,000 times per year exceeding all estimates of criminal misuse. Using a gun to resist a crime or assault is safer than not resisting at all or resisting with means other than firearms. Guns not only repel crime, guns deter crime as is shown by numerous surveys of criminals. [137] Particularly where the powerful images of children are concerned, any recitation of the data undercutting the exaggerated extent of the gun problem is met with, "if it saves only one life" The most loving person, however, must admit that a life lost because a gun was absent is at least as valuable as a life lost because a gun was present. We generally would value the life of the innocent over the aggressor. Remember that "dead" is not necessarily or even usually "innocent." Given the preponderance of defensive gun use, we must see pseudo-data and images that pluck at our heartstrings for what they are, certainly not a basis for public policy. The myths of police protection It has been argued than guns are not needed by citizens because they are protected by the police and the military, including the National Guard. [138] Despite increasing law enforcement manpower and expenditures and in view of the increased crime rate, the effectiveness of that protection can be rightfully questioned. It can be correctly observed that a significant, if not majority, of police activity involves "mopping up" after the crime has already occurred. Research suggesting that police apprehension offers less deterrent to criminals than the threat of encountering an armed victim has been reviewed. [139] Additionally, it is alarming to recall that armed citizens had to protect themselves from the police and US National Guard soldiers participating in the looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo; [140, 141] and the withdrawal of police protection from riot- torn areas of Los Angeles; and the two day delay in putting armed and supplied National Guard soldiers on those same streets of Los Angeles. [142] Bursting the legal myth Case law [143] and government statutes [144] are clear that the police only have a responsibility to provide some general level of protection to the community at large, that they are under no obligation whatsoever to protect any individual, even if in immediate danger, [145] unless the police have promised special protection to informants or witnesses. [146] An oral promise to respond to an emergency call for assistance does not make the police liable to provide protection. [147] "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda [the victim] did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." [148] The harsh reality Communities can afford neither the liability nor the level of police expenditures necessary to guarantee the personal safety of all the individuals who may be (or think they may be) in need of protection. The level of police powers necessary to attempt such levels of protection would necessitate more of a police state than would be currently tolerable in our society. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin [149] Throughout American history we have innumerable examples of criminal activity, terrorism, civil disorder, and natural disaster, where the police and military forces have been unable or unwilling to protect citizens, often for racist reasons. [150] The relationships amongst gun control, racism, [151, 152, 153, 154] and political power [155, 156] have been explored. The logical conclusion? Citizens have the natural right [157] and the common sense duty to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and their property. Particularly for the weak, the infirm, the aged, or the individual outnumbered by organized gangs or disorganized rioters, guns are the equalizing tools of self-protection - utopian lamentations notwithstanding. Honest citizens and their families should not be disarmed by fantasies of paradise in a "gunless" utopian society so they may be martyred by sociopaths, crazies, and criminals. For those who "know" there is no individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms Dr. Kassirer has skeptically noted, "Some believe that possession [of arms] is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights." [158] A review of extant scholarship is convincing that such "belief" in an individual right to bear military style arms is consistent with historical evidence and case law. Among those who support an individual right to keep and bear arms are the US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution [159] and the US Supreme Court. [160] The numerous papers and statements of the authors, signatories, and commentators of the Bill of Rights show unequivocally that "militia" was, in their view, the armed citizen. They clearly abhorred a "select militia," namely the National Guard, as a threat to freedom as fearful as a "standing army." [161] Their intent for the Second Amendment was stated most succinctly by Patrick Henry "The great object is that every man be armed." [162] The current United States Code states "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age." [163] The following section of the United States Code defines what James Madison and the other Founding Fathers considered a "select militia" or what we recognize as the National Guard. According to Congress, [164] in order to allow sending the National Guard overseas, it has been established under the Congressional authority to "raise and support armies" [165], not under its authority "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." [166] All Americans were reminded of this in the 1989 US Supreme Court decision Perpich v. Department of Defense [167] which prevented governors from withholding their National Guard units from exercises outside the United States. The US v. Miller decision [168] is often cited and misunderstood. Not only is it historically unassailable that "militia", to the authors of the Bill of Rights, was the armed citizen, but the US Supreme Court's holding in US v. Miller states explicitly that the "militia" comprises "all males physically able of acting in concert for the common defense." That same case acknowledged the individual citizen's right to own military weapons "part of the ordinary military equipment" or which "could contribute to the common defense." Miller was freed at the federal district level, on Second Amendment grounds, from charges of possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun for which he had not paid the tax required under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The federal attorney pursued an appeal. Miller died before the appeal reached the Supreme Court leaving his position unargued. Though ample evidence from the trench warfare of "The Great War" was available, no evidence that a "sawed-off" shotgun was a "militia" weapon had been introduced. The Court held that, absent formal evidence submitted on Miller's behalf, it could not take "judicial notice" of whether or not a sawed-off shotgun was a protected weapon. Because Miller's position was unargued, his indictment was upheld leaving gun prohibitionists confused about the Court's holdings. In Cases v. US, building upon US v. Miller, the Supreme Court found it could regulate, but not"prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." [169] In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, [170] a Fourth Amendment case holding that the warrant requirement is inapplicable to the search of a home in a foreign country, the Court noted that "the people" who have the right to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to be secure in their papers and effects are one and the same "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms. The Court explicitly held that the authors of the Bill of Rights did not somehow confuse "the people" with "the state." The Court also noted that "people" have rights and that the "state" has powers. The powers of the state regarding the militia were clearly delimited in the body of the US Constitution which preceded the Bill of Rights. The power of the states to raise their own militias and the power of the federal government to raise an army are not exclusive of the inherent, individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights was felt a necessary addition by Federalists and anti-Federalists alike to protect the many inherent rights of the people. [171] It is groundless to assert that the Second Amendment protects powers delegated to the government. Justice Brennan, expanding upon the opinion, reminded us that the rights are inherent, not granted or rescinded by fickle government whimsy: "[rights are not] given to the people from the government [T]he Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." [172] All these holdings undercut the "prohibitionist theory" of the Second Amendment. At the US Supreme Court level, the "prohibitionist theory" rests largely on the refusal of the Court to hear certain gun cases (denial of certiorari petitions), rather than on the Court's explicit holdings in the admittedly few extant holdings. [173] Those few holdings have not used the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to explicitly "incorporate" the Second Amendment protections against the states. There is, however, increasing legal scholarship supporting such incorporation. [174, 175] Only in Second Amendment matters do we see certain "liberals" take unique and hypocritical refuge in a "states' rights" posture. The pace of Second Amendment litigation parallels legislative infringements and jurisdictional conflicts, so the Supreme Court is unlikely to indefinitely evade the incorporation issue. The linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment is unambiguous. [176] While the introductory phrase "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is partially explanatory, there is nothing equivocal, qualified, or limiting in the substantive guarantee of the declarative phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are no qualifiers as in the right to be secure against "unreasonable searches and seizures." [177] Despite efforts by the well-funded gun prohibitionist lobby to denigrate this individual right as the "insurrectionist theory", [178] their "prohibitionist theory" of the Second Amendment is the theory that flounders. So, if gun prohibitionists do not find the protective or recreational uses of firearms persuasive reasons for sane, law abiding, adult citizens to own the firearms of their choice, and in view of the constitutional impediments to gun prohibition, their only legal option to accomplish their goal is to first convince Americans that they have no lawful or natural right to self-protection from felons or tyrants and then to amend the US Constitution. Public policy by emotion, carelessness, or deception The Council has had the opportunity to make its case on "assault weapons." Any objective review of the available data decimates the purported factual underpinnings of the Council's position. If, after a review of the best evidence available, the Council or other readers continue to espouse a prohibitionist policy, so be it. If those sentiments are based on fears of what people "might" do with this or that weapon, so be it. If those sentiments are based on a general antipathy towards guns, so be it. Let us not, however, imagine that the prohibitionist view is supported by anything else. The emperor has no clothes. Neither hoplophobic anxieties; prohibitionist agitprop; aberrant, selected, and sculpted "factoids"; nor political skullduggery and deception are proper bases for public policy. Other areas of gun prohibitionist interest have been equally biased and devoid of substance. Many firearms owners are physicians who are familiar with the indictments [179, 180] of the highly politicized Center for Disease Control (CDC) policies regarding gun prohibition and their funding of related research. Reviewing the charges might make one question whether or not the CDC is simply a "factory of fallacy" and whether or not taxpayers should properly pay for polemics masquerading as research. The near virtual exclusion of data and analysis that confounds the prohibitionist position makes it appear that medical journals operate on the principle that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." [181] Some dream of a day when we will see: -- standardization of gun data collection to enhance public policy considerations, -- no taxpayer funding of rhetoric, -- more incisive analysis and critical, but unbiased, review of articles and policies before publication, -- less polemics and fewer contrived "factoids" from researchers, editors, officers, and committees enamored of their a priori conclusions, and -- discontinuance of editorial policies that stifle and marginalize objective research and dissenting opinions. The personal [182, 183] and monetary [184, 185] costs of guns compared with medical "misadventure" leaves room to wonder whether doctors are more deadly and costly than guns. Drs. Organ and Fry remind us that 25,000 trauma deaths per year [about twice the number of annual gun homicides and approximately equaling total annual gun deaths] are the result of an inadequate trauma system. [186] These sobering perspectives should not be lost on the Council, the House of Delegates, the officers of the AMA, the CDC, or its stable of researchers while they toe the politically correct line on gun prohibition. The compromise essential to effective gun control That the cooperation of law-abiding gun owners is necessary to the success of any regulatory scheme is routinely overlooked by gun control and prohibition advocates. The portion of 200 million firearms in the hands of Americans who recognize an inherent right to those arms will not evaporate with the stroke of a pen. Intolerable police state tactics will be necessary to obtain even their marginal compliance too high a price for too little benefit. The author supports education in safe, responsible firearms ownership by mentally competent and law-abiding adults. There should be certain punishment for violent crime regardless of instrumentality. Victimless possession of objects guns responsibly stored and safely used should neither be banned nor restricted. The author sees no justification for gun bans of any kind. He, like Thomas Jefferson, finds support in a favorite passage penned in 1764 by Cesare Beccaria: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." [187] Criminal and psychiatric background checks can be accomplished without leaving residual records of ownership that can later be used to aid confiscation. The benefits of instantaneous background checks must be weighed against the risks of privacy loss inherent to easily-accessed, centralized data on mental health records. License to carry weapons, openly or concealed, should be available to sane, law-abiding adults who demonstrate safety, skill, and knowledge of the law related to self-protection. Such license should not entail additional encumbrance nor be subject to arbitrary police discretion or subjective interpretation of "need" or "good cause." Inexpensive weapons should be available to the poor, particularly since they are most at risk for victimization. Ironically it is two gun control but not prohibition advocates, Profs. Kates and Kleck, who have most illuminated these public policy matters. Each has made thorough evaluation of the broad expanse of research available (including their own research) and derived rational and objectively supportable suggestions for revising controls extending certain effectual controls and rejecting the ineffectual, the unattainable, or the merely symbolic with an eye towards realistic, attainable goals. They emphasize that gun control is not a panacea, only incremental improvements are attainable. [188, 189] The underlying causes of violence all violence, not just gun violence must be addressed. In view of the one-sided nature of numerous, ineffectual concessions eroding gun rights to date, the author must emphasize that gun owners should concede no further ground until ineffectual and even marginally effectual controls and bans in other words, all controls but those described above are lifted. Too often the prohibitionist view of "compromise" is "gun owners have five apples, we are morally entitled and, therefore, demand them all." So long as the strident prohibitionists frame the debate, their bigotry, symbolism, [190] deception, and intransigence will prevent effectual solutions. Their presumption of moral superiority is undeserved and an impediment to rational, effectual, and cost-effective solutions. Utopia is not one of our choices. Though not a promising expenditure of effort, the author acknowledges one utopian fantasy; governments should not possess instruments of coercion and violence denied to their citizens. That governments should be denied the same weapons of mass destruction denied their citizens is already a matter of some public accord. What else? Promising directions Good evidence exists that violence in entertainment contributes significantly towards violence in our society. [191, 192] That unwelcome contribution should be minimized. Voluntary restraint by an entertainment industry cognizant of its ill effects on children is desirable. Parents may exercise control over their children's viewing habits. The misdirection of anger and frustration amongst the poor and rich alike can be mitigated by training. [193] We should reassess national drug policies that make the drug trade so attractively profitable that people will kill to reap those profits. We should cease relegating the education and moral instruction of our children to the state. We should discourage the view that life is or could be risk- free or that liberty does not have a price worth paying. We should retire the rhetoric of egalitarian, passive entitlement and revive the values of individual responsibility. We are not tossed completely helplessly on a sea of circumstance. Certainly we must love and cherish our children, raising them with an appreciation of individual responsibility, liberty, learning, and the sanctity of life the libertarian views that may guide this nation toward better days. Footnotes 1 American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Assault Weapons as a Public Health Hazard in the United States. in JAMA 1992; 267: 3070. 2 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. 3 Florida Assault Weapons Commission. Assault Weapons/Crime Survey in Florida For Years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989. Tallahassee, FL: May 18, 1990. 4 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991. 5 Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1981. 6 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. 7 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Press Release. undated. 8 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2. 9 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979. 10 Silver CR. "Self-Defense, Handgun Ownership, and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society," Salter J and Kates DB. "The Necessity of Access to Firearms by Dissenters and Minorities Whom Government is Unwilling or Unable to Protect," among others in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979. 11 Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1989; 99: 637-59. 12 Dionne EJ. "A Liberal's Liberal Tells Just What Went Wrong." New York Times. December 22, 1988. 13 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 1. 14 Kempsky N, Chief Deputy Attorney General. A Report to Attorney General John K. Van de Kamp on Patrick Edward Purdy and the Cleveland School Killings. Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. October 1989. 15 Mohr C. "House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work." New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15. 16 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). p. 38. 17 Kleck G. "The Mass Media and Information Management: News Media Bias in Covering Gun Control Issues." paper presented to the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology. San Francisco, CA. November 20-23, 1991. 18 Hammond, G, Time magazine. form letter to persons complaining about Time's firearms coverage. August 1, 1989. in Morgan E and Kopel D. The Assault Weapons Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Independence Issue Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence Institute. October 10, 1991. 19 Mercy JA and Houck VN. "Firearms Injuries: A Call for Science." JAMA. 1986; 255: 3143-4. 20 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California Department of Justice. October 31, 1988. 21 Kassirer JP. Correspondence. N Engl J. Med 1992; 326:1159-60. 22 Sugarmann, J. "Assault Weapons and Accessories." memo to the "New Right Watch". 1988. n Morgan, Eric and Kopel, David. The Assault Weapons Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Independence Issue Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence Institute. October 10, 1991. p. 24. 23 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2. 24 Defense Intelligence Agency. Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries. Washington, DC: US Govt. Printing Office. 1988. p. 105. 25 Ezell EC. Small Arms of the World. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. 1983. p. 515. 26 Fackler ML. Letter to the Editor. Wall Street Journal. April 10, 1989. p. A-13. 27 Trunkey D. Affidavit in opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, Oregon State Shooting Association, et al. v. Multnomah County, et al.. September 4, 1990. 28 Fackler ML, Breteau JPL, Courbil LJ, Taxit R, Glas J, and Fievet JP. "Open Wound Drainage versus Wound Excision in Treating the Modern Assault Rifle Wound." Surgery. 1989; 105: 576-84. 29 Fackler ML and Kneubuehl BP. "Applied Wound Ballistics." J Trauma. 1990; 6(2) Supplement: 32-7. 30 Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A. "Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick Purdy in the Stockton, California, Schoolyard Shooting of January 17, 1989." Am J Forensic Medicine and Path. 1990; 11(3): 185-90. 31 Knox N. testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 304-6. 32 Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6. 33 Lindsey D. "The Idolatry of Velocity, or Lies, Damn Lies, and Ballistics." J Trauma. 1980; 20; 10689. 34 Fackler ML. "Ballistic Injury." Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1986; 15; 1451-5. 35 Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics." in Trunkey DD and Lewis FR, editors. Current Therapy of Trauma, vol 2. Philadelphia: BC Decker Inc. 1986. pp. 94-101. 36 Fackler ML, Breteau JPL, Courbil LJ, Taxit R, Glas J, and Fievet JP. "Open Wound Drainage versus Wound Excision in Treating the Modern Assault Rifle Wound." Surgery. 1989; 105: 576-84. 37 Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6. 38 Pinkney DS. "ERs Seeing More 'War Wounds' Caused by Assault Weapons." American Medical News. April 14, 1989; 3: 42-5. 39 Feuchtwanger MM. "High Velocity Missile Injuries: A Review." J R Soc Med. 1982; 75: 966-9. 40 Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. p. 220 and Table 11.3 at p. 221. 41 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. pp. 2-4. 42 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California Department of Justice. October 31, 1988. 43 e.g. Fresno Rifle Club v. Van de Kamp, 746 F. Supp. 1415.; Abascal, Kasler, McCord, Danto, Mauser, Magaddino, Snow, Bowman, Henderson, Ford, Suter, Erler, Mixson, Howard, Krot, Colt's Manufacturing Co., Threat Management Institute v. Lundgren[sic] 44 e.g., among many, Remington 740, Remington 7400 Sporter, Heckler and Koch 770, Heckler and Koch SRT-9, Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, Browning Automatic Rifle, Valmet Hunter, Galil Hadar, Springfield Armory M1A, Springfield Armory SAR-4800, Armscorp T-48 45 Shea D. Machine Gun Dealers Bible. Hot Springs, AR: Lane Publishing. 1991. p. 199. 46 USC XXVI 5801-5872. 47 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 72. 48 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California Department of Justice. October 31, 1988. 49 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 1. 50 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California Department of Justice. February 13, 1991. 51 California Penal Code 12275-12290 52 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2. 53 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 4. 54 Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2. 55 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991. 56 Gilbert Equipment Company Striker 12, Calico M-900 pistol, Heckler & Koch H-93 57 Baretta, Steyer 58 Made in China AKM-56S 59 the Avtomat Kalashnikova, Steyr AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr), Cetme G-3 60 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. Memorandum to Allen Sumner, Senior Assistant Attorney General Re: AB1509 (Agnos). June 2, 1987. 61 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991. 62 Forsyth R, Media Director for Senate President Pro- tempore David Roberti, California State Senate. "Assault Weapons in California: A Case Study in Issue Management and the Media." Senate of the State of California. presented at National Conference of State Legislators. Chicago, IL. December 10-12, 1989. 63 Bock AW. "Statistical overkill on banned rifles." The Orange County Register. June 28, 1992. p. 3. 64 Los Angeles Times. "Assault Weapons Ban Called Unenforceable." June 25, 1991. at A-3, A-22. 65 Presley R, California State Senator. Letter to Gregory Cowart, Director of Law Enforcement, California Department of Justice. November 6, 1991. 66 Kenady P, Asst. Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, California Department of Justice. Letter to the Honorable Robert Presley, California State Senator. December 20, 1991. p. 1. 67 Bock AW. "Statistical overkill on banned rifles." The Orange County Register. June 28, 1992. p. 3. 68 Lungren DE, Attorney General, State of California and Kenady PM, Assistant Attorney General for Legislation, State of California. letter to Edgar A, Suter, MD. August 3, 1992. 69 Tolley L, spokesman, Handgun Control Inc. memorandum to Donna Brownsey, assistant to California State Senator David Roberti. "California Assault Weapon Lists." July 17, 1991. p. 1. in Morgan E and Kopel D. The Assault Weapons Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Independence Issue Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence Institute. October 10, 1991. p. 49 footnote 12. 70 Lucas G. "State Semiautomatic Gun Registrations Called Surprisingly Low." SF Chronicle. March 10, 1992. p. A15. 71 Schneider J. "Chicago Semi-Auto Ban Effective Aug. 14." The New Gun Week. July 24, 1992. p. 1. 72 Datig FA. The Luger Pistol. 1962. Borden Publishing Company. pp. 37-38. regarding the development of the Borchardt semi-automatic pistol. 73 Hogg IV and Weeks J. Military Small Arms of the 20th Century - 5th Edition. Northfield, IL: DBI Books. 1985. pp. 170-1. 74 U.S.C. XXVI Chap. 53. 5801 et seq. 75 Trahin J, Detective, Firearms/Ballistics Unit, Los Angeles Police Department. testimony before the US Senate. Hearings on S386 and S747 Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. 101st Congress, 1st Session. May 5, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 379. 76 Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions and Background. Washington, DC: Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security; March 24, 1989. 77 Ezell EC, curator of the National Firearms Collection at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 78 Ezell EC. open letter to The Honorable John Dingell. March 27, 1989. 79 Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 2 Quantities of Semi- automatic "Assault Rifles' Owned in the United States. Washington, DC: Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security; March 24, 1989. 80 Ezell EC, curator of the National Firearms Collection at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 81 Goldfarb B. "Hospitals Endure a Drug War Assault." USA Today. March 19, 1990. P. D-1. 82 Pinkney DS. "ERs Seeing More 'War Wounds' Caused by Assault Weapons." American Medical News. April 14, 1989; 3: 42-5. 83 McCarthy C. "Medical Price of Violence; Guns and Drugs are Stretching Emergency Rooms to the Limit." Washington Post. February 21, 1989. p. Z-14. 84 Assault Weapons: Background Paper. Sacramento, CA: California Attorney General's Office; February 1989. 85 Cox Newspapers. Firepower: Assault Weapons in America. Washington, DC: Cox Enterprises, 1989. 86 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Press Release. undated. 87 Zimring FE. "Street Crime and New Guns: Some Implications for Firearms Control." Journal of Criminal Justice. 1976; 4: 95- 107. 88 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). Appendix B. pp. 65-76. 89 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). Appendix B at p. 66. 90 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). Appendix B at p. 70. 91 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). Appendix B at p. 71. 92 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). Appendix B at p. 67. 93 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 75. 94 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). Appendix B at p. 69. 95 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2. 96 Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 2 Quantities of Semi-automatic "Assault Rifles' Owned in the United States. Washington, DC: Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security; March 24, 1989. 97 Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 114-5. 98 Baltimore Police Department. Firearms Submissions. 1990. 99 Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 77. 100 DiMaio V, Chief Medical Examiner, Bexar County, TX. letter to George Lundberg, MD. June 11, 1992. 101 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. Memorandum to Allen Sumner, Senior Assistant Attorney General Re: AB1509 (Agnos). June 2, 1987. 102 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991. 103 Simkins JE. "Control Criminals, Not Guns." Wall Street Journal. March 25, 1991. 104 Mericle JG. "Weapons seized during drug warrant executions and arrests." unpublished report derived from files of Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad, Will and Grundy Counties, IL. 1989. in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2. 105 Reply Brief of State of Colorado, Robertson, et al. plaintiffs, State of Colorado, plaintiff-intervenor v. City and Country of Denver. # 90CV603 (Colorado District Court). p. 13-15. 106 Florida Assault Weapons Commission. Assault Weapons/Crime Survey in Florida For Years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989. Tallahassee, FL: May 18, 1990. 107 Boston Globe. March 26, 1989. p. 12. in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. 108 Arnold M, Massachusetts State Police, Firearms Identification Section. Massachusetts State Police Ballistics Records. March 14, 1990. 109 Arnold M, Massachusetts State Police, Firearms Identification Section. Massachusetts State Police Ballistics Records. April 11, 1991 110 Reins W, Sgt. memorandum to Minneapolis Police Chief J. Laux. April 3, 1989. 111 Trahin J, Detective, Firearms/Ballistics Unit, Los Angeles Police Department. testimony before the US Senate. Hearings on S386 and S747 Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. 101st Congress, 1st Session. May 5, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 379. 112 Newark Star Register. "Florio Urges Ban on Assault Rifles, Stresses His Support for Abortion." July 18, 1989. p. 15. 113 Constance J, Deputy Chief, Trenton, NJ Police Department. testimony before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. March 7, 1991. p. 3. 114 Moran, Lieutenant, New York City Police Ballistics Unit. in White Plains Reporter-Dispatch. March 27, 1989. 115 San Diego Union. "Smaller Guns are 'Big Shots' with the Hoods." (reporting a study by the city's firearms examiner). August 29, 1991. 116 Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 68. 117 Wilson GR, Chief, Firearms Section, Metropolitan Police Department. Wall Street Journal. April 7, 1989. p. A-12, col. 3. and New York Times. Apr. 3, 1989. p. A14. 118 Wilson GR, Chief, Firearms Section, Metropolitan Police Department. January 21, 1992. in Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). Table 5. p. 18. 119 FBI. "Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1990." 1991. Washington DC: Us Government Printing Office. p. 12. 120 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). p. 23. 121 Blackman PH. "Senators Use False Numbers to Cover Up Gun Ban Votes." The American Rifleman. November 1990. pp. 49-50. 122 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. NFA Weapons Inventory: Data through 12/31/90. Computer run of 1/14/91. 123 Shea D. Machine Gun Dealers Bible. Hot Springs, AR: Lane Publishing. 1991. p. 199. 124 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 4. 125 Competitions Division, National Rifle Association. personal communication. July 21, 1992. 126 Baker JJ, "DCM Notes." The American Rifleman. June 1990. p. 72. 127 Harris CE. "Bluing and Beyond." The American Rifleman. December 1982. p. 24. 128 135 Congressional Record 1868. February 28, 1989. 129 Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1988, Section II. p. 3. reporting on a housing project using Kalashnikov-style rifles and other semi-automatic weapons to drive back an attack by the "Bloods" gang 130 Washington Times, November 25, 1988, Section C. p. 6. reporting on a block club defending its community from the "Bloods" gang 131 135 Congressional Record S1869-70 (daily ed. February 28, 1989). in Morgan, Eric and Kopel, David. The Assault Weapons Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Independence Issue Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence Institute. October 10, 1991. p. 16. citing several instances of citizens defending their communities using "assault weapons" in cases of domestic disorder following natural disasters such as blizzards, floods, and hurricanes. 132 Cable News Network. Video footage of Korean shop owners during the April 1992 Los Angeles riots. April 31, 1992. 133 Foster SE. "Guns and Property." The Free Market. Ludwig von Mises Institute. July 1992; 10: 1 & 7. 134 Wright J D., Rossi PH and Daly K. Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1983. 135 Cambridge Reports, Inc. An analysis of public attitudes towards handgun control. a survey for the Center for the Study and Prevention of Handgun Violence (an organization sharing directors with Handgun Control, Inc.). 136 survey for National Alliance Against Violence by Peter Hart & Assoc. in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. 137 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chapter 4. 138 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. 139 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. pp. 130-8. 140 Hernandez M. "US Orders In Troops to Quell Island Violence." Los Angeles Times. September 21, 1989. p. 1. 141 Hyman S. "Hurricane Looting Rains Its Lessons Left and Right." Los Angeles Times. October 1, 1989. Opinion Section. p. 5. 142 Foster SE. "Guns and Property." The Free Market. Ludwig von Mises Institute. July 1992; 10: 1 & 7. 143 South v. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (1856); Bowers v. DeVito, US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d. 616 (1882). 144 for example, California Government Code 845. "Failure to provide police protection Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service." 145 Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr. 5 (1975). 146 Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d. 1306 (D.C. App. 1983). 147 Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d. 1 (1981). 148 Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d. 897 (1968). 149 Franklin B. Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759. 150 Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61. 151 Tonso WR. "Gun Control: White Man's Law." Reason. December 1985. pp. 22-25. 152 Tahmassebi S. "Gun Control and Racism." George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. Summer 1991; 2: 67-99. 153 Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61. 154 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979. 155 Kessler RG. "Gun Control and Political Power." Law & Policy Quarterly. July 1983: Vol. 5, #3; 381-400. 156 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979. 157 Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self- Protection." Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104. 158 Kassirer JP. "Firearms and the Killing Threshold." N. Engl J Med 1991; 325:1647-49. 159 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982. 160 US v. Cruickshank, 95 US. 542 (1874), held that the individual right to possess arms existed independent of the Second Amendment and US v. Miller, 307 US. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939) is discussed in the body of this article. 161 Halbrook SP. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 131-207 162 Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginiataken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, 275 (2nd ed., Richmond) 1805. 163 USC X 311(a) 164 House Report No. 141, 73rd. Congress, 1st. Session. 1933. pp. 2-5. 165 US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (12). 166 US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (16). 167 Perpich v. Department of Defense. 110 S.Ct. 2418 (1990). 168 Miller v. US. 307 US 174 (1938). 169 Cases v. US, 131 F.2d. 916 (1st Cir. 1942) at 922. 170 US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. 494 US 259 (1990). 171 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982. 172 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982. p. 288. 173 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. 174 Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." The Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284. 175 Halbrook S. "Freedmen, Firearms, and the Fourteenth Amendment" in That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 1984. Chap. 5. 176 Halbrook SP. "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right to 'Bear Arms.'" Law and Contemporary Problems. Winter 1986; 49 (1): 151-62. 177 US Constitution. The Bill of Rights. Article IV. 178 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. 179 Blackman PH. 1990. "Criminology's Astrology: The Center for Disease Control Approach to Public Health Research on Firearms and Violence". a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology. Baltimore, MD November 7-10. 180 Blackman PH. 1991. open letter to the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity Review of the US Public Health Service. April 23, 1991. 181 Liebling AJ. American Film. 3:67. July 1978. 182 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 43. 183 Harvard Medical Practice Study. "Harvard Medical Practice Study." Unpublished report to the State of New York. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Medical School 1990. in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. 184 Wenzel RP. "The Mortality of Hospital Acquired Bloodstream Infections: Need for a New Vital Statistic" Int J Epidemiol. 1988; 17: 225-7. 185 Martin MJ, Hunt TK, Hulley SB. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. 1988; 260: 3048-50. 186 Organ CH and Fry WR. "Surgery." JAMA. 1992; 268: 413-4. 187 Beccaria C. On Crimes and Punishments. 1764. (translated 1963 by H. Paolucci). in Halbrook S. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 1984. p. 35. 188 Kates DB. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. 1990. 189 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. 190 Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle over Gun Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992. 191 Centerwall BS. "Television and Violence: The Scale of the Problem and Where to Go From Here." JAMA. 1992; 267: 3059-63. 192 Centerwall BS. "Exposure to Television as a Risk Factor for Violence." Am. J. Epidemiology. 1989; 129: 643-52. 193 Spivak H, Prothrow-Stith D, and Hausman AJ. "Dying Is No Accident." Pediatric Clinics of North America. 1988; 35: 1339-47. u an individual right to keep and bear arms are the US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution159 and the US Supreme Court.160 The numerous papers and statements of the authors, signatories, and commentators of the Bill of Rights show unequivocally that militia was, in their view, the armed citizen. They clearly abhorred a select militia, namely the National Guard, as a threat to freedom as fearful as a standing army.161 Their intent for the Second Amendment was stated most succinctly by Patricbb -- [bb 063] at [Cleveland.Freenet.Edu] Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V) "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin From talk.politics.guns Wed Dec 16 09:38:57 1992 Path: mdivax1!mdisea!uw-coco!uw- beaver!news.u.washington.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!c s.utexas.edu!asuvax!asuacad!gundevil Organization: Arizona State University Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 14:09:36 MST From: Shooting Club at ASU <[G--DE--L] at [ASUACAD.BITNET]> Message-ID: <[92349 140936 GUNDEVIL] at [ASUACAD.BITNET]> Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Help on NEJM info References: <[1 gasehINNn p b] at [usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu]> Lines: 74 ----------------------------Original message--------------- ------------- This is from "Preston K. Covey" _________________________________ BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC [########[]_________________________________> /\/\OTOROLA Wireless Data Group, \> I don't speak for Motorola / \Subscriber Products Division, [b--o--h] at [mdd.comm.mot.com]