Handgun Control Incorporated, a major rallying banner of the anti-gun movement in America, has been spreading false information as "facts". The citations from this page are taken from HCI's know the facts page: http://www.handguncontrol.org/facts/index.asp

Gun Industry Reform
 

What is the only unregulated product in the United States?

Imagine a car made of a metal so inferior that, if hit at low speeds, passengers are easily crushed.  Or imagine a car that doesn't have seat belts or locks on its doors and whose doors are so flimsy, a child could easily open them and fall out while the car is moving.  Is this car unsafe?  Of course it is.  Should the car manufacturer change the design of the car to prevent such accidents from occurring?  Of course it should.  But suppose the manufacturer says that these accidents are not its responsibility.  It says the car functions exactly as it's supposed to:  it drives fine and it gets you where you want to go.  The manufacturer says that it is the passengers' responsibility to make sure they don't fall out and that it is the driver's responsibility to make sure the car doesn't get hit.  Is that a reasonable argument to make?

Of course it's not.  Yet a comparable problem exists today in America with guns.
 

Wrong. Firearms manufacture in America is regulated by an organization called SAAMI, that inspects all firearms manfucatured or imported. The gun must meet minimum safety standards to make sure that it performs as it was designed to perform, especially in terms of safety mechanisms and overall constructions. This is what keeps guns from blowing up in people's faces.
 
 

THE PROBLEM
 

Every year in this country, tens of thousands of people are killed or injured by guns.  Many of these shootings are unintentional or suicides which could be prevented if the gun industry were more responsible in the design of its products.  Thousands more are shot in homicides -- and even many of these shootings could be prevented if the gun industry changed its business practices.  Unfortunately, the gun industry refuses to recognize its responsibility to make its products safer, choosing instead to place the sole burden on the user -- even when that user is a four-year-old child.
 

The gun industry is responsible in the design of its products. Every gun currently manufactured has at least one safety mechanism, sometimes up to three or four, designed to prevent the gun from firing unless they are disengaged by the user. Many arms engage these devices automatically, making it completely the user's fault if they fire, barring defects in the mechanism. The real problem with this argument -besides trying to pull heartstrings with the four year old crack- is that this "responsibility in the design of its products" would render the guns useless, even for hunting. They don't even bother considering self defense.
 

The gun industry manufactures and markets the only widely available consumer products designed to kill.  Unfortunately, thanks to the power of the gun lobby, the gun industry also manufactures and markets the only widely available product for which there are no consumer product safety standards.  In fact, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was created by Congress in 1972 to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products, guns were specifically exempted from the CPSC's jurisdiction.  The CPSC monitors safety standards for all manner of consumer goods -- from clothing to toys to lawn mowers -- but not guns.
 

As I said, guns and ammunition are regulated by SAAMI. They are regulated. Sorry.
 

Nor does this responsibility belong to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).  The ATF has jurisdiction over the commerce of guns, such as licensing of dealers, standards for purchasers, and regulating sales and transfers, but it does not and cannot set manufacturing safety standards for firearms.
 

Good. They're a bunch of bungling idiots anyway.
 

As a result, there are more safety standards governing the manufacture of a toy gun or for a teddy bear than there are for a real gun.  The only standards a gun manufacturer has to comply with are ones the manufacturer sets for itself.  And unfortunately, there are far too many gun makers who don't care if their products are poorly made, lack basic safety features, or pose an unreasonable risk to the public.  The industry does not care because it doesn't have to:  there are no laws which require it to make sure its products are not unnecessarily dangerous.

Moreover, the gun industry has been irresponsible in the way it markets and sells its products, failing to maintain standards for distributors which would prevent gun trafficking, misleading consumers about the use of guns in self-defense, and deliberately marketing products in such a way as to attract criminals.
 

Guns can be used for self defense. What, would you market a self defense arm as a fabric softener, or what?
 
 

THE ANSWER IS GUN INDUSTRY REFORM
 

No it isn't.
 

Because of the inherently dangerous nature of its products, the gun industry has a special responsibility to take into account the public's health and safety in conducting its business activities.  There are steps that the gun industry can and should take which would reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries in our society.  Handgun Control and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence seek to change industry practices which contribute directly to gun-related violence -- both criminal and unintentional.  These practices include all aspects of the business, from design and manufacturing standards to marketing and advertising strategies to sales practices.
 

Why not make a car without an engine?
 

Gun industry reform includes the following:

Design and Manufacture:  Innovating for Safety, Not Lethality.
 

It's a freaking gun, you moron!
 

Gun manufacturers are well aware that the lack of safety features in the design of firearms leads to unintentional shootings, suicide, and the criminal use of stolen firearms.  Many of these features are readily available and inexpensive, such as a load indicator, which tells the user that the gun is still loaded, or a magazine disconnect safety, which prevents the gun from firing if the ammunition magazine is removed.  Even "childproofing" or "personalizing" a gun can be relatively easy and inexpensive by including a locking mechanism that prevents unauthorized users from firing it.  Unfortunately, only a very small percentage of guns have such features.  Even though they know that such features would reduce gun injuries and deaths, gun manufacturers refuse to make such changes to all of their products.  Instead, gun manufacturers have made smaller, more powerful weapons, putting profits ahead of safety.
 

All guns have safeties of some kind. All guns.
 

Gun manufacturers must innovate for safety -- only supplying the market with guns that, by design, minimize the risk of unintentional injury, suicide and the criminal utility of a stolen firearm.
 

SUICIDE? How would you propose to stop that? The answer is, you don't- this is a cheap trick; you want standards that can't be obeyed so that guns can't be manufactured anymore.
 
 

Design and Manufacture:  Guns Appropriate for Legitimate Civilian Use
Gun manufacturers have continually designed and supplied to the market firearms which are better suited to criminal than legitimate use.  For example, assault weapons and low quality, easily concealable "junk guns", or Saturday Night Specials, have been manufactured without regard to how they might be used -- both categories of firearms are disproportionately used in crime.  Furthermore, there is simply no legitimate need for cop-killer bullets and mail-order parts which allow someone to assemble an untraceable gun without a serial number, both products of the industry.  Because firearms are often used in crime, it is incumbent on gun manufacturers to constantly evaluate the risks to public health and safety of the products they design.  The industry must stop supplying the market with guns which are attractive to criminals and which have no legitimate civilian use.
 

And who decides just what a "legitimate civilian use" is? Eh? You obviously aren't qualified to do it, you don't even know that all guns have safeties.
 

Advertising:  Being Honest About the Risks
The decision to bring a gun into the home should be well-informed.  The message conveyed by some advertisements for firearms is that the purchase of a handgun will make a person or home safer.  In fact, the opposite is true:  guns are rarely used for self-protection and having a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional injury.  Furthermore, some manufacturers advertise their products in such a way as to appeal to criminals (such as boasting a fingerprint-resistant finish).
 

Guns are rarely used in self protection? Do you have the statistics to back that up?
 

Gun manufacturers and gun sellers must be truthful when advertising their products.  Advertisements for firearms should:  1) not make claims which suggest that guns in the home enhance personal security; 2) avoid messages which are likely to make the industry's products more desirable to the criminals or others prone to violent behavior; 3) not be placed in publications with a substantial youth readership; and 4) include warnings about the risks of guns in the home.
 

They are truthful. They say what caliber and type of action the gun is. What do you want a big sign that says "DON'T BUY A GUN!", or something?
 

Distribution and Sales Practices:  Stemming the Flow to the Illegal Market
Virtually every gun on the illegal market is first acquired from the manufacturer by a federally licensed gun dealer as part of a legal transaction.  Guns then enter the illegal market in several ways:  by theft from dealers who lack adequate security systems;  in bulk purchases by gun traffickers or straw purchasers who re-sell them on the streets to criminals; or in purchases by prohibited purchasers from gun dealers who either knowingly or negligently fail to check the purchaser's identification adequately.  Guns are also supplied to the illegal market through gun shows, where it is easy for prohibited purchasers and gun traffickers to find each other and where the unregulated sale of firearms through private sales is common.
 

The gun manufacturers have no way of controlling that.
 

It is the responsibility of the industry, from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retail gun dealer, to work together to limit the opportunity for guns to cross over from the legal to the illegal market.  The industry needs to set standards for dealers, train dealers to recognize gun traffickers and straw purchasers, and hold gun stores accountable if they knowingly or recklessly sell guns to criminals.
 

I can buy any gun and in whatever quantity I please as long as I have the money. I won't trade my freedom for your security.
 
 

HOW REFORM CAN BE ACHIEVED

Gun industry reform seeks changes in the conduct of the firearms business which are entirely within the industry's control.  Unfortunately, the industry has proved itself unwilling to make these changes voluntarily so strategies to compel the industry to change have begun.

Legislative attempts to reform the gun industry are ongoing at both the federal and state level.  Bills have been introduced to place guns under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, ban assault weapons and junk guns, and crack down on negligent dealers.  However, at a time when the gun lobby is able to block gun control efforts in the legislatures, the best chance for reform may be in the courts.  Several cities and counties have filed lawsuits against the gun industry to recover damages for the cost of gun violence stemming from the industry's negligence.  The true goal of these lawsuits is not to recover money, however, but to change the industry itself.
 

That would be unconstitutional. I know you hate the constitution, but NEENER NEENER NEENER!

Do you feel safer sitting next to someone carrying a gun?
 

Yes.
 

Many people say no to that question, and for many valid reasons. Most people who have permits to carry concealed weapons -- people who are not law enforcement officials -- have limited training and undergo less testing than even the most basic police recruit. Yet they are led to believe that given a dangerous situation, they will use deadly force with the same care and consideration that police officers will. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal? Yet the National Rifle Association at every opportunity uses the fear of crime to  promote the need for ordinary citizens to pack a gun.
 

I didn't say no. What, you think a cop is competent with a gun? Hell, the cops plaster people who pull out their identification too quickly. I trust civilians more than I trust cops.
 
 

THE HISTORY
The carrying of concealed weapons (CCW) was prohibited or severely limited in most states prior to the mid-1990's.  After its stunning losses on the Brady Bill and the assault weapon ban in 1993-94, the NRA needed a win - and turned to their traditional strongholds in state legislatures.  By 1995, the NRA made the radical liberalization of CCW laws at the state level their top political priority, arguing that ordinary people carrying hidden weaponss would actually reduce the nation's soaring crime rates.  Their not-so-hidden agenda: increasing gun ownership in general and increasing the sales of concealable handguns - at a time when gun sales had gone flat - in particular.  In the first year of their new campaign, the gun lobby was successful, and many states changed their laws to allow the widespread carrying of concealed weapons.
 

And it's working, too. Vermont, which has almost unrestricted carry, is the least-murderous state in the nation.
 

Since 1996, however, the gun lobby has failed to convince even one state legislature to weaken concealed-carry laws.  Despite the claims of the gun lobby's pro-CCW "expert," economist John Lott, who attempts to link liberal CCW laws with lower crime rates, several eminent criminologists have now published peer-reviewed studies debunking this flawed research. (See John Lott Q&A). And, in what may be the decade's conclusive refutation of pro-CCW propaganda, in April, 1999 Missouri citizens voted against liberalizing that state's CCW laws in the first-ever state referendum on the issue, although the NRA spent almost $4 million to win what it called 'the last great gun battle of the 20th century.'  Following the Missouri vote, Kansas, Michigan and Colorado legislatures all dropped NRA-sponsored drives to weaken those states' CCW laws. Clearly, the tide has turned against hidden handguns.
 

What eminnent criminologists? Name them.
 

CCW: WHY OR WHY NOT?
 
 

The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is quite small.  Out of 34,040 American firearms deaths in 1996, only 212 were justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms.
More guns = more crime - or at least a much smaller reduction in the crime rate. A 1999 study by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, based on FBI crime statistics, demonstrates that liberalizing CCW laws may have an adverse effect on a state's crime rate. Between 1992 and 1997, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 24.8%.  The 29 states that bought the NRA line that hidden handguns make them safer saw their violent crime rates drop by only 11.4%.  Nationally, violent crime declined by 19.4% in that five year period. (Click here to see the study, "Concealed Truth")
The gun lobby claims that only law-abiding citizens get CCW permits. But a recent study by the Violence Policy Center demonstrated that in the first six months of 1997, the weapon-related offense rate among Texas concealed handgun license holders was more than twice as high as that of the general population of Texas.  We know that CCW holders are committing crimes - 946 of them in Texas in that six-month period - but because the gun lobby ensures that lists of CCW licensees in most states are not publicly obtainable, the full story has not yet been told.
Even law-abiding citizens with the best intentions underestimate how hard it is to use a gun for successful self-defense. Even highly-trained police officers frequently lose control of their handguns; according to the National Institute of Justice, an average of 16% of all police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by an adversary with the officer's firearm.  And police officers know that the very sight of a gun can escalate a situation, so that instead of losing your wallet, you lose your life.  That's why almost every major law enforcement organization, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, opposes the liberalization of CCW laws. (See Law Enforcement)
An armed society is an at-risk society. Many permit holders have been stripped of their permits for criminal behavior…and even law-abiding people get angry, get confused, make mistakes, and escalate ordinary arguments into gun-play.
 

Oh yeah, like you expect me to trust your study. You seem to be only using Texas as an example, too. That's a little odd.
 
 

THE LAWS
Carrying-concealed-weapons (CCW) laws have nothing to do with private firearms ownership in the home.  They relate solely to allowing individuals to carry their concealed guns almost anywhere in the community.
 

I'm an American. I walk around with a gun duct taped to my forehead if I choose; it is my right under my constitution.
 

Much of the CCW debate is couched in somewhat obscure language.  Pro-gun forces favor "shall issue" laws, which means that law enforcement shall issue a permit allowing the carrying of hidden handguns to anyone who meets that state's requirements.  In many states, these requirements are minimal and do not go much beyond the federal Brady Law requirements for purchasing firearms - meaning that some licensees are eligible despite criminal convictions for violent or drug-related misdemeanors.  Training requirements are extremely lax in most states and do not even include proof that a licensee knows how to load, fire or store a firearm.  And, although some states do forbid the carrying of concealed weapons in certain government buildings, most shall-issue states allow concealed weapons in bars, daycare centers, sports stadiums and other public places where firearms should clearly be prohibited.  Utah and Montana even permit their licensees to carry guns on school grounds, and Kentucky amended its already lax law to permit guns in churches and other places of worship.
 

Oooh, guns in church. Evil, evil, I tells ya!
 

Handgun Control supports the seven states which flatly prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons.  However, fourteen other states with "may-issue" systems - meaning that law enforcement may issue a permit depending upon the needs and circumstances of the applicant - do allow police to deny permits to applicants who clearly should not be carrying firearms. New Jersey, for example, issues a very small number of permits, and almost all go to citizens like security guards with an occupational requirement.  "May-issue" systems like New Jersey's enable law enforcement to retain discretion over the serious and dangerous privilege of carrying a concealed weapon in public, and are supported by almost every major law enforcement organization.
 

Civil disobedience. 'Nuff said.

How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association’s opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.
 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Enough said.
 

The NRA’s constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: ORIGINAL MEANING AND INTENT
The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment -- the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.
 

Well regulated meant well drilled and practiced, and the militia was not under direct control of the government.
 

The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 -- hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
 

Wrong.
 

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III’s troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.
 

That's right- the second amendment is there as protection from the government, and communists, liberals, and social engineers like you get edgy about that.
 

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TODAY
In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.

Today’s equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia -- the National Guard -- has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today’s militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
 

The national guard is not the "militia". If the arms are supplied by the government, why does it say shall not be infringed? You accuse the NRA of omitting the important parts but you do so yourself.
 

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice -- in 1965 and 1990 -- the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.
 

Supreme court rulings can and have been overturned. Do you like the Court so much that you'll drop the minimum wage, or social security? I doubt it. You only like it when they agree with you.
 

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special’ or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
 

He's also FORMER Chief Justice.
 

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.

THE RENEGADE DECISION: U.S. v. EMERSON
On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser’s firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precendents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling is being appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).
 

Yay!
 

GUN CONTROL LAWS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause.

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47’s with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father’s guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree.
 

You say the vast majority of Americans suppot gun control, but you cite no statistics. You say the framers would support it, even though they wrote the amendment, and you ignore their own writings which indicate that the opposite would be true. You care nothing for the truth, only your own agenda. You're a cadre of various activist groups that want to ban guns as part of a social framework that you would like to create, and I refuse to live in your society- it is my right.

 Home

 Mail