Guns are manufactured easily by anyone with a simple mechanical sense and the crudest tools and materials, he argues. Even in prisons guns are obtained through smuggling and primitive manufacture. Anop adds that marijuana is illegal in the U.S. but that this hasn't stopped even high school kids from smoking it. And the border patrol is unable to prevent the easy flow of machine guns and mortars, let alone handguns, across the Canadian and Mexican borders.
Banning handguns will only take them away from the peaceful, law-abiding citizen, Cassidy says: those who are committing the crimes will keep their guns.
Massachusetts is a good example of this problem, he claims, noting that "only .1 per cent of licensed gun owners in the state committed a crime with their guns in 1973." He cites Boston Police Department records showing that of the seventy handgun murders in Boston in 1973, not one was committed by a licensed gun owner. "It is clear," Cassidy argues, "that banning handguns will only affect the licensed gun owners since the others already hold their guns in violation of the law."
This difficulty looms even larger for gun registration proposals. In a 1968 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a felon cannot be required to register his gun, reasoning that such a requirement would be forcing the felon to testify against himself, in violation of the fith amendment. This ruling seems to have made gun registration almost a dead issue.
Whether because the availability of guns does not cause crime or because gun laws have not prevented criminals from getting guns, or both, the record of such laws has not been good, Cassidy says. He says that "in 1965, prior to a city registration law and a strict state licensing law, Chicago saw 395 murders. After 8 years of strict gun control, 1973 saw 874 murders." Philadelphia also passed a strict gun licensing law in 1965 and according to FBI crime reports, the murder rate per 100,000 went from 5.4 to 11.5 in 1973. The FBI reports also show, he continues, that after Toledo enacted a tough gun law in 1968, murder rose from 28 to 62 in 1973.
Crout explains that after enactment of the tough Sullivan law in New York in 1911, murders increased by 18 per cent the following year and burglaries increased so fast that insurance companies petitioned the legislature to repeal the law. Today, he says, New York City prohibits handguns almost entirely and has the second highest murder rate of cities over a million, along with 21 per cent of all robberies committed in the United States.
Many advocates of handgun prohibition have conceded it won't stop crime in general. Senator Backman says his bill to ban handguns was really aimed at preventing murders committed by previously law-abiding citizens in a rage of passion during a fight with friends or relatives. If a gun was really not accessible, Backman argues, the murder may not have taken place because a less deadly weapon would have been used. Buckley says, "FBI crime reports show that 72 per cent of all murders are crimes of passon."
What the reports show is that 72 per cent of all murders are committed by acquaintances. Cassidy argues that since only about half of all murders are committed with handguns, the measure is really aimed at 72 per cent of half of all murders. And murders between acquaintances are not all crimes of passion stemming from a fight between friends, he says; people often plot to kill acquaintances, and if they can plot to kill they can get a gun regardless of the law. Backman's bill was unlikely to have a signficant effect on the murder rate, he says.
The chief effect of a handgun ban will be to prevent people from protecting themselves, Anop argues, drawing attention to FBI crime reports which show for example, that after police trained some 6000 Orlando, Florida women in firearms the incidence of rape was cut in half. Similar events occured in Phoenix and Atlanta, according to the FBI.
As an example Crout cites the case of Joyce Boyd in 1974. "After taking an early walk near Putnam Reservoir in Danvers, Massachusetts, she was attacked by two men when she returned to her car. Their obscene language made their intentions clear; but fortunately she had a handgun, the sight of which caused them to change thuir tune from 'White Mama' to 'OK Lady,' after which they ran to their car and drove off."
"No one has statistics on how many crimes are prevented in this manner, but there are certainly quite a few." Cassidy says. Private handgun ownership can prevent crime when attackers are scared away or when the crime never occurs because the potential criminal fears his victim will be armed, he argues. Cassidy feels that without this deterrent effect crime rates might rise rather than fall after a handgun ban.
Less than .03 per cent of all handguns were used in murder in 1973 and less than 1 per cent were used in crime. GOAL members feel that its unfair that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens be deprived of their guns for self defense and recreation when they have done nothing wrong and only a tiny portion of gun owners have misused their guns.
GOAL members believe a fairer and more effective way of reducing crime and murder would be to deal with that tiny portion, citing the work of Wilson, who is not way affiliated with GOAL. Wilson said last week that on the basis of his current work and previous work by others, he believes most crime is done by a small group of repeaters. Cassidy says they account for 70-80 per cent of all crime.
Furthermore, Wilson said, only a tiny fraction of reported crimes, 2 or 3 per cent, lead to jail or prison terms for the offender, the major reason being that few are apprehended. But another reason is that of those convicted so few are sent to jail. GOAL reports that only 21 persons go to prison for every 100 murders, only 7.1 persons for every 100 rapes, and only 5 persons for every 100 robberies. "If much or most serious crime is committed by repeaters," Wilson writes in his latest book Thinking About Crime, "separating repeaters from the rest of society may produce major reductions in crime rates... The gains to society from crimes not committed while they are in prison will be real and substantial."
Wilson argues that more certain and slightly more severe prison sentences will prevent crime mainly because repeaters will be in prison rather than committing crimes, but also because the sentences will have a deterrent effect on future crimes. GOAL members believe this would be the fairest and most effective way to protect lives and property.