Gun Control.

Gun Control. I INTRODUCTION Gun Control, attempt to reduce violence caused by use of firearms by regulating their ownership and use. Gun control efforts generally focus on passing legislation--by local, state, or national government--to restrict legal ownership of certain firearms. Most countries have some restrictions on firearms. This article discusses gun control in the United States. II THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE Proponents of strict gun control laws argue that reducing the number of crimes committed with guns would save lives. Each year in the United States, more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, a death rate much higher than that in any other industrial nation. Attacks involving a gun are five times more likely to result in a death than are similar attacks made with a knife. In 1997 guns were the weapon used in approximately 70 percent of the murders in the United States. However, gun control laws are controversial. While gun control laws may decrease criminals' access to guns, the same laws restrict law-abiding citizens. About half of all U.S. families own at least one gun. The most frequent motives for gun ownership are protecting the home, hunting or target shooting, and collecting. Gun control laws aim to reduce the criminal use of guns as much as possible while not putting large burdens on legitimate gun users. Opponents of gun control laws, including organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), object to the inconvenience these laws may cause to law-abiding gun buyers or owners. Another objection to gun control laws concerns the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which reads A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those who oppose restrictions on gun ownership find support in the language of the Second Amendment and believe that it should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. However, the courts have never struck down a gun control law because of this provision. In some cases the courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as applying only to militia weapons, and in other cases they have simply affirmed that the amendment does not bar government regulations on gun ownership. Nonetheless, the Second Amendment has been an important part of the debate on gun control. III GUN CONTROL LAWS The federal government and all U.S. states have some gun control laws. These laws are based on several strategies: forbidding certain types of people from obtaining any firearms; prohibiting anyone other than the police, the military, and persons with special needs from acquiring certain types of guns; and requiring purchasers to wait some period of time before purchasing a gun or gun license. The most common gun control strategy attempts to prohibit unreliable people from obtaining guns. Federal and state laws prohibit people who have been convicted of a felony (serious crime) and other individuals deemed to be poor risks (such as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or who have a history of domestic violence) from purchasing guns. Federal law and many state laws also prohibit minors from obtaining guns. Another gun control strategy centers around high-risk guns--that is, guns that are especially likely to be misused. Since 1934 federal law has severely restricted sale and ownership of machine guns (weapons that fire many rounds of ammunition with a single pull of a trigger) and sawed-off shotguns. The Congress of the United States judged these to be high-risk weapons. Since the late 1980s, many people have proposed adding some semiautomatic rifles and pistols to the list of restricted high-risk weapons. These guns require a separate pull of the trigger to fire each round of ammunition but can quickly fire many rounds. In 1994 a federal law prohibited the manufacture and importation of 19 types of semiautomatic guns, which were called assault weapons in the legislation, and also banned ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The federal ban on assault weapons contained an exception for weapons suitable for hunting and sporting purposes. After the law was enacted, lawmakers expressed concern that foreign gun manufacturers were making minor modifications to assault weapons in order to qualify for this exception, thus circumventing the restrictions on the weapons' importation. In 1997 the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms conducted a review of imported military-style weapons modified to meet the sporting and hunting purposes exception. In 1998 the agency announced that modified semiautomatic rifles that retained the ability to accept large-capacity military magazines do not meet the criteria for the sporting purposes exception. In 2004 the assault weapons ban expired, and the U.S. Congress did not renew it. Bans on assault weapons in California and several other states remained in effect. The expiration of the federal assault weapons ban became an issue during the 2004 presidential election, and gun control advocates were expected to press for a renewal of the ban after the election. Gun control advocates have also proposed laws treating handguns (revolvers and pistols) as special high-risk weapons that ordinary citizens should not own. These proposals are controversial. Their backers argue that handguns are easily concealed and are much more likely to be used in crime than are rifles and shotguns. Opponents of handgun restrictions argue that taking handguns from law-abiding citizens would not prevent the possession of guns by criminals. Despite this controversy, some localities and states have laws that stringently restrict private ownership of handguns. Other strategies for controlling guns require the licensing of guns or waiting periods before purchasing a gun. These strategies are designed to allow time for law enforcement officials to make sure that a buyer is not prohibited from owning a gun. Some U.S. states have adopted laws based on these strategies, and in 1993, after a seven-year battle, the U.S. Congress passed the Brady Bill, named after former White House press secretary James Brady. Brady and his wife, Sarah, became proponents of gun control after Brady was shot and seriously wounded during a 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. They formed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, based in Washington, D.C. The so-called Brady Law, which went into effect in 1994, initially provided a five-day waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to make sure the purchaser is not disqualified from owning a handgun. The law also established licensing fees. In 1998 a new computerized verification system replaced the five-day waiting period requirement. Under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), firearms dealers submit the names of potential buyers into the system and can more quickly ascertain whether the sale may proceed. IV OTHER GUN CONTROL EFFORTS Most attempts to reduce gun proliferation have relied on governmental regulation. However, in the late 1990s gun control advocates attempted to use financial sanctions, rather than regulation, to minimize gun violence. Several cities filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors, arguing that gun dealers should pay for the cities' increased costs of law enforcement and health care resulting from gun violence. Some of these lawsuits, such as those filed by Chicago, Illinois, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, alleged that gun manufacturers acted negligently (not carefully enough) when marketing and distributing their products. The cities contended that gun manufacturers oversupplied gun dealers in areas with weak gun restrictions, knowing that individuals from areas with tougher laws would purchase the guns. Other cities, such as New Orleans, Louisiana, and Atlanta, Georgia, used a different approach in lawsuits against gun makers. These cities alleged that gun makers failed to include sufficient safety devices in their handguns, making the guns "unreasonably dangerous" and increasing gun violence and the cities' costs to address the violence. Gun manufacturers and other opponents of gun restrictions objected to the cities' lawsuits, claiming the suits would unfairly bankrupt gun makers who were operating legal businesses. They argued that gun makers and dealers should not be blamed for misuse of their products. Opponents of the litigation lobbied for legislation prohibiting lawsuits that attempt to hold gun manufacturers and distributors liable for the results of gun use, and several state legislatures adopted such a statute. Members of the U.S. Congress also introduced federal legislation on the matter. In another new strategy, in 1999 gun control advocates began efforts to subject gun manufacturers to federal product-safety regulations. For example, lawmakers introduced federal legislation that would eliminate the gun industry's exemption from product-safety regulation and give the U.S. Department of the Treasury authority over design, manufacture, and distribution of guns. Industry representatives and gun enthusiasts objected to federal regulation, stating that existing design standards that the gun industry had voluntarily adopted made guns sufficiently safe. To reduce the threat of continued litigation, some gun manufacturers have begun to consider self-imposed changes in their manufacturing and business practices. In 2000 one of the largest handgun manufacturers in the United States, Smith & Wesson, agreed to changes in its handgun design and distribution. Under the terms of the agreement with federal, state, and local governments, the company pledged to include child-safety locks on all of its handguns, to design new guns with a safety device that would prevent them from being fired by unauthorized users, and to implement a feature that would allow users to tell whether a handgun is loaded. In return, several states, cities, and counties agreed to drop Smith & Wesson from lawsuits they had filed against gun manufacturers and to exempt the company from future lawsuits. In 2004 the gun control lobby claimed a major victory when a gun manufacturer and a retail gun store agreed to pay $2.5 million in damages for gun-related violence. The payments went to relatives of six victims of sniper attacks that were carried out by two men in 2002, and to two survivors of the attacks. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence brought the lawsuit against Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. of Windham, Maine, and Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington. In agreeing to the settlement, Bushmaster denied any wrongdoing. Contributed By: Franklin E. Zimring Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.