Gun Control

by Helen Cothran

High profile school shootings across the nation have reinvigorated the debate about gun control. In the following chapters, sociologists, activists, and others debate whether stricter gun control... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0737707461
• ISBN13: 9780737707465
• Release Date: January 2003
• Publisher: Greenhaven Press
• Length: 192 Pages
• Weight: 0.70 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.4" x 5.5" x 8.6"
• Age Range: 15 to 17 years
• Grade Range: Grades 10 to 12

Customer Reviews

Understanding Your Viewpoint

This book contains 24 opposed viewpoints grouped into four main topics on this subject. Chapter 3 asks if gun ownership is an effective means of self-defense. Viewpoint 1 says guns are effective for self-defense. Most news stories in the corporate media depict violent crime committed with guns, rarely the defensive use of guns. The author suggests this defensive use is largely unreported. If it prevents a crime, there is no report. And if the gun is not legally licensed, it will not be reported. (Every so often the NY city news reports where a crime was stopped because of action by a citizen; but the citizen was arrested because the gun wasn't licensed!) The absence of guns results in more "hot burglaries", where robbery occurs when the residents are home (p.90). The high rate of gun ownership makes all homes safer. Viewpoint 2 claims guns are not effective for self defense because people can't arm themselves quickly (trigger locks?), or are not trained to shoot accurately (p.95). Most people are shot with handguns, not assault weapons; most people are not shot at work or school, but on a street corner or parking lot (drugs?), or the victim's home (pp.96-96). Viewpoint 3 says defensive gun use is common. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it. The corporate media considers foiled crimes as unnewsworthy (p.100). Most reported self-defense cases occur in the states that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. The number of these can only be estimated, so controversy results (p.103). Gun prohibitionists want a small number to support their claims. While resisting an attack is risky, it is safer than not resisting. Viewpoint 4 claims defensive gun use is not common, and is more dangerous. No proof is given, except the discredited Kellermann article ("43 times more"). Kellermann's statistics came from homes where a violent death occurred from a gun. The cases of homes where a violent death occurred without a gun were not studied; there 99 times more residents were killed than intruders. While there are many times more guns than swimming pools, more children die from drowning than are accidentally shot. The number of defensive gun uses are not known, only estimates that reflect political biases (D. Hemenway, p.110). The author does not approve of the sale of defensive handguns, but doesn't think to ask what drives the demand. Hint: it isn't advertising in the corporate media.Viewpoint 5 says concealed weapons makes a safer society. States that allow this experience fewer violent crimes, and no increase in accidental deaths. Over 60% of the states allow concealed weapons. The authors answer five objections to this with facts. A handgun allows self-defense. Concealed handguns reduce crime (Vermont p.114). There was no increase in impulse killings. Training is required before a permit is issued. Concealed carrying does not increase gun accidents. Viewpoint 6 does NOT have a real person as the author! They claim that

Gun Control: Exercise in Futility?

This book contains two dozen opposing viewpoints on the subject of "gun control". Chapter 4 asks "what measures would reduce gun violence?" and provides eight answers. Reading opposing views will educate you, but you should browse some of the books in your library for more depth.Viewpoint 1 claims "gun control" will reduce lethal crime. The writer says criminal assaults and robberies are not higher in the United States than other developed countries, but the murder rate is much higher. (Actually, the rate of violent deaths in America is lower than in many European countries, and Japan.) Louisiana's murder rate is 20 times the rate of Vermont (which has little gun control). Cities have more murders than rural areas (with guns?). Page 130 mentions that none of the theories can explain this! But the writer claims that eliminating handguns would lower the number of homicides! Viewpoint 2 says gun control will not reduce violent crime; it is a failure in other countries. Japan's abolition of private gun ownership resulted in an increase of gun violence (p.132). This also happened in Australia and Great Britain (p.133). But in America violent crime continues to fall as the number of states with "shall issue" laws increase. Viewpoint 3 claims gun control will reduce school violence, because guns were used in the 1999 Columbine massacre. Yet prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act, most schools had rifle teams, guns were more handy, and no massacre ever happened! There were no monstrous high schools, MTV, video games, working mothers, and, less oppression of students. Viewpoint 4 says gun control will not reduce school violence, because firearms are obtained illegally. In spite of the corporate media attention, school violence is declining, and students are still safest in school (p.141). The Columbine killers illegally obtained their legally bought guns. Proposals made after this crime were flawed. Most gun violence is intentional, not accidental. Besides, the 1968 Gun Control Act was supposed to cure this! There are flaws in the criminal justice system (p.145). More people are deterred from crime by social standards, not laws (p.146). He suggests prevention programs need more funding (p.147). But there's big money in prison constructions and operation, and payoff to politicians that suggest early intervention programs will be skimped.Viewpoint 5 claims gun manufacturers should be held responsible for gun violence. But manufacturers of automobiles, baseball bats, knives, etc. are NOT responsible for their misuse! The CPHV tries to use the tort system to prosecute gun manufacturers for misuse of their products. Isn't this barratry? The truth is that CPHV is using civil torts in an attempt to get guns outlawed since they can't accomplish this through legislation. This article has many half-truths and one-sided claims. It could be used as an example of sophisticated special pleading (p.149-153). Viewpoint 6 says gun manufacturers should not be held responsible f

Short Course of Opposing Viewpoints

This book has four main topics, with two dozen opposing viewpoints. These were chosen for balance, and edited to fit 192 pages. It has a list of organizations that may be contacted, but not the number of their memberships (tells how broad based they are). It lists 25 books on this topic, but does not summarize them. You should know that Bellesiles' book was discredited as an historical work, and W. Weir's book is better than the others. Chapter 1 asks if private gun ownership poses a serious threat to society. It doesn't define "serious threat", or tell that every gun is "owned" by its user. Viewpoint 1 does not list a real person as the author. It claims that a weapon is dangerous (!) and must be "regulated". It is an attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. It admits the murder rate increased after the 1968 Gun Control Act even when no firearm was used (p.20)! Most gun deaths result from suicide, not murder (p.22). Viewpoint 2 correctly points out that gun ownership has increased faster than the homicide rate (p.27), so it is simple minded to claim the former caused the latter (pp. 26-27). Homicide rates fluctuate, and have tended to decline (p.28). Viewpoint 3 uses rhetoric about an idyllic youth in East Orange NJ (before the Gun Control Act), but cites not facts in support. Page 32 suggests a biased outlook in the data collection by part of the CDC, and that some part of the AMA has a political agenda against handguns. What means will they use to reach their desired end? Viewpoint 4 says the medical and public-health establishment produced research that was biased, riddled with errors, and unreliable (p.39). Page 40 gives one example of bias in the 'New England Journal of Medicine': censorship of the report that the homicide rate went up 25% in Vancouver since the 1977 Canadian law banning handguns! Page 43 tells of the flawed methodology used by A. Kellermann (the "43 times fallacy"). Kellermann's article did not use deaths in non-gun homes as a control; in the cases of a non-gun home you are 99 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. (Most deaths in the home are suicides.) Between 25 and 75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost by a gun (p.44). Guns prevent harm to people, and protect property every day. When the discredited CDC gun control research was defunded, corporate millionaires began to pay for this slanted research (p.46). [King county in Washington has one of the highest rates of suicide in the country. Kellermann should have investigated how to counter the effects of dark gloomy weather on people.] Viewpoint 5 is a good example of slick writing that doesn't really say much. The writer didn't do enough research ("dime-store novels"?). He mentions "the past three decades of gun violence" which echoes the fact that the 1968 Gun Control Act resulted in more crime and violence. Viewpoint 6 comes from a victim of a crazed shooter. This student of psychology has some insights into the "gun c

The Constitution and Gun Ownership

This book provides edited articles that present opposing viewpoints. Chapter 2 asks if the Constitution protects private ownership. The obvious answer is that it did until the 20th century, when the newly powerful corporate aristocracy sought to disarm the people. The phrase "a well-regulated militia" means armed citizens who elect their own officers; this is how it worked from Colonial times onwards. "Well-regulated" also meant well-practiced. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" also meant that people were required to own and carry arms, as in Colonial days. Note the word "arms"; there was no restriction intended on any type. Federal law still classifies all males (18 to 45) as the "unorganized militia". The Founding Fathers did not want a "select militia", one not composed of all the people.Viewpoint 1 explains why private ownership is protected by the Second Amendment. In Presser vs. Illinois (1886) the Supreme Court proclaimed that "the State cannot ... prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms" (p.64). In U.S. vs. Miller (1939) the Supreme Court did not deny the right to keep and bear arms, except in the narrow sense of the recently outlawed type of weapon used (pp. 64-65). This was a fixed case, since Miller was not represented in court! Recent Supreme Court decisions have not denied that "the people" means just what it says (pp. 65-67). Viewpoint 2 attacks the right to keep and bear arms. It implicitly admits this interpretation was created after the Civil War (p.70). The Miller decision was constructed to enforce the 1934 Firearms Act (banned sawed-off shotguns), another political decision. This introduced the concept of intent! It is dishonest to claim that Cruikshank does not apply to the Federal government (p.71), since the other Amendments do apply to the states (due process, equal representation, etc.). It is amusing to quote Hickman vs. Block 1996, since so many states have passed "right to carry" laws in the 1990s! Simmons speculates on the intent of gun advocates, but doesn't tell the truth about his own intentions. Viewpoint 3 explains why "gun control" (meaning 'gun prohibition') is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not contain the power to limit the ownership of arms. The Second Amendment positively forbids infringing the right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth Amendment says the people retain all rights not listed in the Constitution, such as the right of self-defense. The Tenth Amendment says powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the people. This proves Congress has no Constitutional power to prohibit the keeping of arms by the people.Viewpoint 4 argues that gun control is constitutional. He admits that guns are not the root cause of violence, and, the news channels play up the tragedies. He admits the Founding Fathers wanted no limitations on the right to keep and bear arms (p.79). He claims "the correct interpretation" is to allow limits, but fails to see that this novel app