"Gun control" encompasses many different forms of laws intended to regulate human behavior in some way related to firearms. Some controls regulate gun acquisition, restricting the purchasing, trading, or receiving of guns. Gun owner license laws require that people have a license in order to lawfully possess a gun, even in the home, and in order to acquire the gun in the first place. This license is not issued until the applicant has passed through a check of official records to see if the person has a prior criminal conviction, and possibly to see if they have some other disqualifying traits, such as alcoholism or mental illness. Purchase permit laws require a person to get a permit before buying a gun, and applicants must first pass through a records check. "Application-to-purchase" systems are similar to purchase permit systems, except that the records check is typically optional, and the system usually requires a minimum waiting period between initial purchase attempt and final delivery of the gun. Registration systems merely record the acquisition or possession of a gun, linking each gun with a particular owner. They do not screen for unqualified gun buyers.
Other laws regulate gun transactions from the other end, licensing and regulating the selling of guns, or regulating their manufacture or importation. Still others regulate various kinds of gun use. Some laws forbid the carrying of guns in public places, while others require licenses to do so. Restrictions are generally stronger regarding concealed carrying than open carrying, and stronger with respect to carrying on the person than carrying in a motor vehicle. Some attach mandatory penalties to unlawful carrying. Other laws attempt to discourage gun use in crimes by attaching additional penalties (some discretionary, others mandatory) if various dangerous felonies are committed with a gun.
Almost all states prohibit possession of guns by high-risk subgroups of the population, most commonly convicted criminals, mentally ill people, drug addicts, alcoholics, and minors. These laws do not directly restrict the original acquisition of guns, but instead make it somewhat more legally risky to be in possession of guns at any one time.
The strongest gun laws of all impose bans on the possession, sale, and/or manufacture of various categories of guns. While no U.S. jurisdiction forbids gun ownership altogether, New York City and Washington, D.C. have de facto bans on the private possession of handguns, and some small towns have formal handgun bans. Some cities, such as Chicago, forbid the sale of handguns within city limits, without banning their possession. Finally, a number of states have banned the sale and manufacture of "Saturday Night Specials," usually defined in practice as guns made of cheap metal with a low melting point.
Levels of support for gun control have shown no clear long- term trends in the past decades. There is short-term volatility in reported levels of support for some measures, consistent with evidence that opinion is easily changed and that gun control is not a salient issue for many Americans, despite the emotional intensity of debates among activist minorities. The intensity of support for gun control appears to be weaker than opposition, in the sense that opponents report that they are much more likely to actually do something based on their beliefs, such as contributing money to an organization connected the issue or writing a letter to a public official. Much of the support for gun control is not utilitarian or instrumentalist in character: that is, many people support gun control even though they do not believe it is an effective tool for reducing violence. Instead, positions on gun control seem symptomatic of culture conflict, with gun law used as a way of declaring gun ownership and gun owners to be morally inferior, parallel to the way alcohol prohibition was used as a way for older Anglo-Saxon Protestants to condemn the culture of supposedly free- drinking Catholics from Irish or Southern and Eastern European backgrounds.
% in
Control Measure Date Survey Favor
All-Guns Ban
Private citizens surrender all guns to govt. 1976 NORC <17a ban sales of all guns 1985 roper 22 making it illegal for civilians to own guns 1989a time/cnn 29 handgun bans buy back, destroy handguns, mandatory basis 1978 caddell 26 buy back, destroy handguns, voluntary basis 1978 caddell 33 ban further manufacture, sale of handguns 1978 caddell 32 ban private possession of handguns 1990 csur 36 ban sales of handguns 1989 cbs 40 ban handgun possession in high crime areas 1975 harris <47 local ban on sale, possession of handguns 1986 gallup 47 in r's own community ban further manufacture, sale of 1978 caddell 48 nonsporting handguns federal ban on interstate sales of handguns 1986 gallup 67 ban further manufacture, sale of 1978 caddell 70 small, cheap handguns federal ban on manufacture, sale, possession 1989 gallup 71 of "saturday night specials" other gun bans federal ban (as above) on semiautomatic 1990 csur 69 assault guns, such as the ak-47 federal ban (as above) on plastic guns 1989 gallup 75 ban on keeping loaded guns illegal to have loaded weapons in home 1965 gallup <47a ammunition purchase permit police permit required to buy ammunition 1965 gallup <56a mandatory penalty, carrying mandatory minimum 1 year jail term, 1981 gallup 62 carrying gun without a license ban on use by minors completely forbid use of guns by those <18 1967 gallup <68a purchase permit require permit to purchase a rifle 1975 harris <69a require police permit to purchase a gun 1990 csur 68 owner's license require license to own a handgun 1978 caddell 74 registration register all guns owned 1989 time/cnn 73 register all rifles owned 1989b time/cnn 68b register all shotguns owned 1989b time/cnn 65b register all handguns owned 1990 harris 73 register all gun owners 1940 gallup 74 register all semiautomatic weapons owned 1989b time/cnn 77b register all gun purchases 1990 harris 79 register all handgun owners 1938 gallup 79 register all handgun purchases 1978 caddell 84 safety training require mandatory safety training to buy gun 1989b time/cnn 82b mandatory prison sentence, crime with gun require mandatory prison sentence for 1978 caddell 83 persons using a gun in a crime carry permit require a permit to carry a gun outside home 1988 gallup 84 waiting periods 21 day waiting period to allow criminal 1981 gallup 91 records check, handgun purchases 14 day waiting period, any gun purchase 1989a time/cnn 89 7 day waiting period, handgun purchases 1988 gallup 91 sources: 1989b time/cnn quinley (1990); 1981, 1986, 1987 gallup gallup (1987); 1988 gallup gallup (1989); 1965, 1967 gallup, 1975 harris, 1976 norc smith (1980); 1990 csur (center for social and urban research) mauser and margolis (1990); 1985 roper, 1989a time/cnn, 1989 cbs, 1990 harris computer search of dialog database, poll file; all others crocker (1982). see original sources for exact question wordings. notes: a. source only reported % opposing measure; 100 minus % opposing is maximum possible % in favor. b. computed as simple average of separate percentages for gun owners and nonowners. norc="National" opinion research center, producer of general social surveys
Table 3 shows the level of public support for many different specific gun control proposals. There are a large number of weak or moderate controls which a majority of Americans will endorse if asked, though few will volunteer "gun control" as an answer if asked an open-ended question soliciting their opinion about how crime might be reduced. Bans on gun possession do not have majority support, but many moderate regulatory measures do. Controls on handguns enjoy more support than controls on the more widely owned rifles and shotguns. There is more support for "getting tough on criminals" than for controls likely to restrict or impose costs on ordinary gun owners. In short, Americans support controls unlikely to have any direct impact on themselves, while opposing those which might impose some costs on them or interfere with their own gun ownership.
Table 4 summarizes prior research on the impact of gun laws on violent crime rates, while Table 5 summarizes research on their impact on suicide rates. Given the previously noted lack of support for the notion that guns have a net violence-increasing impact on either violence rates or the outcomes of individual violent incidents, it is not surprising that research has failed to indicate consistent support for the view that gun laws reduce violence. Most studies do not support this idea, and the few that do are extremely weak methodologically. The more common technical weaknesses are listed in Table 4.
Gun Control
Study Weakness Effective?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wisconsin (1960) X X X X X No
Krug (1967) X X X X X X No
Geisel et al. (1969) (X) X X X No
Olin Mathieson (1969?) X X X X ? X No
Seitz (1972) X X X (X) X X Yes
Murray (1975) X X X (X) X No
Zimring (1975) X - - - - X Mixed
Beha (1977) X X (X) - - X Mixed*
Deutsch and Alt (1977) - - X - - X Mixed*
Cook (1979) X ? No
Hay and McCleary (1979) - - X - - X No*
Nicholson and Garner (1980) X - X - - X Mixed
Sommers (1980) X X X X X X Mixed
Jones (1981) X - - X - - X Mixed
Lester and Murrell (1981) X X X X X No
Pierce and Bowers (1981) X - X - - X Mixed*
Lester and Murrell (1982) X X X X X X Mixed
Magaddino and Medoff (1982) X X X X X No
DeZee (1983) X X X X No
Loftin et al. (1983) - - - X - - X No
Loftin and McDowell (1984) - - - X - X No
Magaddino and Medoff I (1984) X X X X No
Magaddino and Medoff II (1984) - - - - X No
McPheters et al. (1984) - - - X - - X Yes
Lester and Murrell (1986) X X X X X X No
Lester (1987) X X X X X X No
Lester (1988) (X) X X X X Yes
Jung and Jason (1988) - - X - X No
Kleck and Patterson (1991) No
Summary: 3 Yes, 8 Mixed, 18 No
"Gun Control Effective?" means "Did gun laws appear to significantly reduce
total rates of violence or crime?"
Weakness Codes: X indicates problem existed, blank indicates no problem,
dash (-) indicates problem is an inherent property of time series studies,
and (X) indicates partial presence of problem, or problem inadequately dealt
with.
Weaknesses:
1. Included no, or very few, control variables.
2. State level of analysis used, rather than city.
3. No measure of local gun control laws.
4. No measure of gun ownership included.
5. Only one source of information on gun control laws was used.
6. Lumped heterogenous mixture of gun laws together, without separate
measures of impact of different types of gun laws.
7. Studied just one specific law; little generalizability.
*These four studies are not independent since they are all evaluations of the
same law (Mass. Bartley-Fox law) in the same time period, using the same
general methods. They contributed 3 of the 8 studies classified as "Mixed."
Their findings are classified this way because, taken as a whole, they
indicate that the law had no effect on homicide, may have reduced robbery
(two studies indicated this, one did not), and reduced gun assaults by a
moderate amount while increasing nongun assaults by a larger amount.
Gun Controls
Significantlya
Gun # Gun Reduce Rate of:
# Control Ownership Controls Gun Total
Study Sample Variables Measured? Assessed Suicide Suicide
Geisel et al.(1969) 50 states, 7 No 1(8)b Yes/Noc No
1960
50 states, 8 No 1(8)b Yes/Noc No
1965
129 cities, 8 No 1(8)b - No
1960
Murray (1975) 50 states, 9 No 7 No -
1970
Lester and Murrell 48 states, 0 No 1b Yes Yes
(1980) 1960, 1970
Nicholson and Time series 0 No 1 Yes Yes
Garner (1980) Wash., D.C.
Lester and Murrell 48 states, 0 No 3(8)d Yes -
(1982) 1960, 1970
Medoff and 50 states, 5 No 1(2)e - Yes
Maggadino (1983) 1970
DeZee (1983) 50 states, 7 No 7 No -
1978
Sommers (1984) 50 states, 2 No 9 Nof -
1978
Lester (1987) 48 states, 0 No 1b - Yes
1970
Lester (1988) 9 regions, 2 Yes 1b Yesg No
1970
Boor and Bair 50 states, 9 No 2(8)h - Yes
(1990) D.C., 1985
Rich et al. (1990) time series 0 No 1 Yes No
2 cities
Kleck and Patterson 170 cities 10 Yes 13 Noi Noi
(1991)
Notes:
a. Significant at .05 level.
b. Measured "strictness" of gun control - all control types lumped
together.
c. Overall "strictness" index was significantly and negatively related, but
separate gun law dummies yielded no significant results.
d. Used 3 factor scores grouping 8 gun control types together; individual
controls not separately assessed.
e. Lumped two gun law types together into a single dummy variable.
f. Only one of 9 gun law coefficients significant at .05 level.
g. Only bivariate association reported.
h. Grouped eight types of gun control into two summary indexes.
i. Of 13 types of controls assessed, 11 showed no negative relationship with
either gun or total suicide. Bans on gun possession by mentally ill
people were negatively related to gun suicide but not total suicide,
while licensing of gun dealers was negatively related to both.
Kleck and Patterson (1991) sought to avoid all of these technical problems. Their analysis covered all forms of violence which involves guns, encompassed every large (over 100,000 population) city in the nation, and assessed all major forms of existing gun control in the U.S. Their findings are summarized in Table 6. They indicate that gun ownership levels have no net positive effect on the total rate of any major form of violence, and that, with few exceptions, existing gun control laws have no net negative effect on violence rates.
Model
Fatal Gun
Murder Aslt Robbery Rape Suicide Accidents
Significant
positive effect
of gun ownership
on violence? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Significant
negative effect
of gun laws on
violence?
License to possess gun in home NO NO NO NO NO YES
Permit to purchase MAYBEa NO NO NO NO NO
Application to purchase NO NO NO NO NO NO
Waiting period to receive gun NO NO NO NO NO NO
Ban on possession by criminals NO MAYBEaMAYBEa NO NO NO
Ban on possession by mentally ill MAYBEa NO NO NO MAYBEa NO
Ban on possession by addicts NO NO NO NO NO NO
Ban on possession by alcoholics NO NO NO NO NO NO
Ban on purchase by minors NO NO NO NO NO NO
Registration of guns NO NO NO NO NO NO
State or local dealer license NO YESa NO NO MAYBEa NO
Concealed handgun carrying NO NO NO NO
forbidden or permit hard to get
Open handgun carrying forbidden NO NO NO NO
or permit hard to get
Mandatory penalty, unlawful carry MAYBEa NO YESa NO
Discretionary add-on penalty for NO NO YESa NO
crimes committed with a gun
Mandatory add-on penalty for NO NO NO NO
crimes committed with a gun
State Constitutional guarantee of NO NO NO NO
individual right to bear arms
De facto ban on handgun possession NO NO NO NO NO NO
Ban on sale of Sat. Night Specials NO NO NO NO NO NO
Summary: 4 YES, 7 MAYBE, 91 NO
Notes:
a. Gun law appeared to reduce gun use in this category of violence.
Source: Kleck and Patterson (1991)
The only clear exceptions were owner licensing, which seems to reduce fatal gun accidents, add-on penalties for committing crimes with a gun, which appear to reduce robbery, mandatory penalties for unlawful gun carrying, which also seem to reduce robbery, and state or local licensing of gun dealers, which (surprisingly) appears to reduce suicides and assaults.
Despite substantial variation in gun control severity and gun ownership levels across U.S. cities, there is no evidence that these have any measurable impact on violence levels, although they do affect the frequency with which guns are used in some kinds of violence. On the other hand, the frequency with which guns are carried may have an impact on robbery which gun ownership levels do not, and gun ownership within special high-risk subsets of the population may have an impact on violence rates which general gun ownership levels do not.
Therefore, the significance of the few gun control measures found to be effective should not be overlooked. There is empirical support for some moderate gun controls. I favor a national "instant records check," which would screen for high-risk gun buyers similar to owner license and purchase permit systems, but without the delays and arbitrary administration which sometimes characterizes those controls. The system should cover nondealer transactions as well as dealer sales, and apply to rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns. Also, tighter licensing of gun dealers and increased enforcement of carry laws may be useful.
Gun control is a very minor, though not entirely irrelevant, part of the solution to the violence problem, just as guns are of only very minor significance as a cause of the problem. The U.S. has more violence than other nations for reasons unrelated to its extraordinarily high gun ownership. Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all- pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism. And just as gun control serves this purpose for liberals, equally useless "get tough" proposals, like longer prison terms, mandatory sentencing, and more use of the death penalty serve the purpose for conservatives. All parties to the crime debate would do well to give more concentrated attention to more difficult, but far more relevant, issues like how to generate more good-paying jobs for the underclass which is at the heart of the violence problem.