The Unfortunately Armed Citizen

Viewer Mail

Led by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), gun control groups and peace activists were successful in defeating an effort by the National Rifle Association and gun importers to allow the importation of 2.5 million surplus military M-1 rifles and M-1911 pistols. These weapons were originally provided to foreign governments as part of military assistance programs. Under current law it is illegal to import them. The NRA and the gun industry were successful in inserting language into the fiscal year 1998 House Department of Treasury appropriations legislation that would have allowed millions of these weapons to flood America's streets.

The Violence Policy Center helped to educate the public and policymakers about the dangers of this proposal. The VPC analyzed firearm tracing data from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and found that 1,800 of these weapons had been traced to crime scenes nationwide in 1995 and 1996 alone.

Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin also made eliminating this dangerous provision a top priority.

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times editorialized against the gun import amendment and the issue received significant press attention in the home district of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, the author of the amendment.

All of these factors combined for a successful outcome when the Murtha amendment was ruled out of order when the House took up consideration of the Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill.

The NRA and the gun industry were relying on stealth to slip through an amendment that would benefit no one but gun dealers and would endanger public safety. As is often the case, the gun lobby fails to get its way once its sneaky tactics are subjected to the light of day.

Senators Feinstein and Torricelli Act to Protect Access to the Courts for People Injured by Defective Guns

Gun control activists cheered, and the NRA and the gun industry wept, last April when President Clinton vetoed the mis-named "Common Sense Product Liability Reform Act," a bill chock-full of provisions that would have protected the gun industry from liability when its defective products kill or maim consumers. Joining the President at the veto ceremony was Sarah Brady. In his veto statement, the President said that one of his major objections to the legislation was that the bill's product-seller provision would "bail out a gun dealer who knowingly sells a gun to a felon." This is just one of the bill's many provisions that would have protected negligent and reckless firearm manufacturers and dealers and undermined the rights of those injured by such conduct.

Unfortunately, the White House appears to be backing away from the President's veto statement and has entered into intense negotiations with Senate proponents of product liability restrictions. The proposal now being considered would severely limit the rights of consumers injured by defective firearms and victims of gun violence whose injuries were precipitated by the negligent acts of gun dealers.

Gun control groups have been urging the White House to insist that suits involving firearms be exempted from the scope of any legislation because of firearms' status as the last unregulated consumer product manufactured in America. And now we have been joined by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) who have announced their intention to offer an amendment to remove guns from the bill when it reaches the Senate floor.

Once a deal is struck, this legislation could move very quickly.

Available Resources:

Lawyers, Guns and Money: The Impact of Tort Restrictions on Firearms Safety and Gun Control is an exhaustive study that analyzes last Congress' bills. The study is available from the VPC for $10.00. Follow these links to view the study's Executive Summary and accompanying Press Release.

The VPC also has fact sheets detailing how pending "tort reform" proposals would undermine efforts to reduce firearms violence through litigation.

On Tuesday, September 30th, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)--joined by representatives from a wide range of organizations including the Violence Policy Center--marked the one-year anniversary of the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban with a press conference at the U.S. Capitol. The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban--signed into law by President Clinton on September 30, 1996--was designed to keep guns out of the hands of wife beaters and child abusers by making it illegal for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse to purchase or possess a gun.

At the press conference, Senator Lautenbeg revealed that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimates that between October and December 1996 more than 500 convicted wife beaters and child abusers were denied handgun purchase because of the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban. The BJS reveals that misdemeanor domestic violence convictions made up 0.74 percent of the estimated 70,000 rejections for handgun purchase in 1996. This translates to an estimated figure of more than 500 convicted wife beaters and child abusers who were denied handgun purchase in 1996 by the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban. Because the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban was only in effect for the last quarter of 1996 the estimated figure of more than 500 convicted wife beaters and child abusers denied handgun purchase reflects only a three month period of time. In a one year period of time--and, the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban has now been in effect for exactly one year--this estimated number translates to more than 2,000 convicted wife beaters and child abusers who have been denied handgun purchases.

Violence Policy Center Health Policy Analyst Sue Glick says, "The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban means no heaters for wife beaters. The law is fulfilling its promise: protecting battered women and children from gun-wielding abusers. We couldn't ask for a better anniversary gift."

The announcement by President Clinton and a number of U.S. gun manufacturers on October 9th that some gun companies will voluntarily supply trigger locks with new handguns will unfortunately offer far greater benefits to the gun industry than to America's children.

VPC Director of Federal Policy Kristen Rand warns, "By endorsing this voluntary effort by the industry to supply trigger locking devices of their own choosing with their weapons, President Clinton has guaranteed that no mandatory federal standards will be developed to ensure that devices labeled ‘trigger locks' will, in fact, help protect children from unintentional gunshot injuries."

The Violence Policy Center has collected a variety of trigger locks currently available that can easily be broken, twisted, or cut off. One trigger lock, the Shot Lock 1000, is made of easily fractured plastic held together with a metal screw. It is not necessary to use the lock's "key"— a round disc with two prongs— to open it. It can be opened with such common household items as a fork, hole punch, or a pair of scissors. Or it can merely be broken off with a hammer or by stepping on it.

In Connecticut, the only state which requires that new handguns be sold with trigger locks, locks similar to the Shot Lock are made available by dealers, who refer to them as "dealer locks" or "legality locks."

The VPC also called into question the motives of some of the industry members participating in the agreement. For example, for more than 20 years Sturm, Ruger & Co. has refused to recall its Old Model Single Action revolver, a defectively designed handgun that has killed or injured more than 600 men, women, and children.

Concludes Rand, "Like the tobacco agreement which at first blush appeared to be a step forward and a victory for public health, the devil is in the details. The firearms industry remains the last unregulated manufacturer of a consumer product and this agreement will do nothing to change that dangerous fact. The big winners in this agreement are America's gun manufacturers—not America's children."

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) recently released Who Dies? A Look at Firearms Death and Injury in America. The 24-page, semi-annual report offers a demographic breakdown of the latest trends in firearm-related injuries and deaths in the U.S. as well as an examination of the rising economic burden placed on trauma care systems that treat victims of firearms violence. The report is designed to be used by the press, policymakers, and the general public for user-friendly access to the most pertinent statistics on gun violence in America.

Using federal mortality data and medical journal research, Who Dies? consolidates information on firearm-related homicide, suicide, unintentional shootings, and nonfatal firearm injuries by sex, age, and race; identifies firearms violence trends over time; and, extrapolates the most relevant statistics for public use. For example, contrary to popular perception, most gun death in America is not crime related. Most firearm deaths in America stem not from homicide (15,835 reported to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in 1995) but suicide (18,503 reported to the NCHS in 1995).

The report also includes four appendices: The Second Amendment—No Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Number and Rates of Firearm Mortality—United States, 1962 to 1994; Domestic Production of Civilian Firearms, 1899 to 1995; and, Wholesale Dollar Value of Firearms and Ammunition Manufactured in the United States as Estimated from Federal Excise Tax, 1983 to 1995. Beginning in August 1997, Who Dies? will be updated regularly and distributed semi-annually.

Study author and VPC Health Policy Analyst Sue Glick states, "Identifying the variations in firearms death and injury among groups provides an opportunity to move beyond the popular but narrow perception of firearms violence as solely a crime issue to place it in its proper perspective: a widespread public health problem of which crime is merely the most recognized aspect. Who Dies? can serve as an educational tool and resource for anyone working to understand the nature of firearms violence in America."

Follow this link to view the full text of Who Dies? A Look at Firearms Death and Injury in America.

The Miami postal clerk who shot and critically wounded his ex-wife, her friend, and then killed himself at a Miami Beach post office on September 2, 1997 had a Florida concealed carry license for the two .357 handguns he pulled from his fanny pack and used in the shooting. According to the Florida State Division of Licensing, the gunman—identified by the U.S. Postal Service as 64-year-old Jesus Antonio Tamayo—was granted a concealed carry license less than two months before the fatal shooting.

According to the Florida State Division of Licensing, more than 200,000 residents currently hold licenses to carry concealed firearms. Two studies by the Violence Policy Center reveal that violent incidents involving concealed carry license holders are not uncommon. The VPC research reports that since the Florida law went into effect nearly 10 years ago, more than 775 individuals have had their licenses revoked for a variety of crimes committed either prior or subsequent to licensure—including assault with intent to murder, kidnapping/attempted kidnapping, and shooting with intent to wound.

VPC Health Policy Analyst Sue Glick states, "This is yet another case that proves the insanity of putting pistols in people's pockets. Concealed carry laws don't reduce violence, they encourage it. A troubled person with a gun in his pocket or glove compartment is a tragedy waiting to happen."

This quote is totally spurious. The anti-gun extremists have said enough foolish things for real. There's no need to go down the blind alley of false quotes.

Pro-gun author and director of research for the Independence Institute Dave Kopel, responding to this false quote, "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when all those who would resist us have been totally disarmed," attributed to HCI's President Sarah Brady, Canadian ShootersNet

They are now employing the successful Democratic tactic. Like Bill, Heston is a "nice" guy, good speaker, and well respected (I know, that was hard to say about Bill). He picks soft targets that Joe Average cannot deny, such as programs for children, women, and crime-fighting. Sound like most of the programs you read about in the NRA mags?

And like the Democrats they say, "OK, he is a lying, thieving, whoremonger, we admit. But he is OUR lying, thieving, whoremonger, and we will stay in power as long as we continue to salute!" (btw, I have no independent knowledge that Heston is a whoremonger)

Unfortunately, we have a number of our own members who share some of those values. Not unusual, I guess, but I wish it didn't make up the majority with most of the votes on the board.

NRA Board Member and Director of the Paul Revere Network Leroy Pyle on the similarities between NRA First Vice President Charleton Heston and President Clinton, October 1997.

Studies indicate that 1,225 Americans were killed in unintentional shootings in 1995, and that the presence of a gun in the home makes it nearly three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner. Send clippings to: "The Unfortunately Armed Citizen," 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20036.

Man Kills Wife in Apparent Accident - Los Angeles Times 9/9/97

A 77-year-old LAPD retiree, who says he accidently shot his wife to death while waving a gun to frighten off a pair of suspicious men, was released to his family Monday morning after a night of questioning by homicide detectives, police said.

John MacWillie...was in his car with his wife when he reached for the handgun beneath the driver's seat.

The couple, married for 47 years, were on their way to their local Ralphs supermaket when, according to John MacWillie's statement to police, two men in a black Chevrolet pulled up alongside them on Warner Avenue and began to glower at the senior citizens.

"Something scared him about those men," Huntington Beach Police Lt. Dan Johnson said. "I guess he assumed they were going to attack him."

John MacWillie pulled his handgun in hopes of scaring off the men, he told detectives. But the gun discharged, hitting his wife in the head.

Each month the Violence Policy Center receives mail from participants on both sides of the gun issue.

You can contact the VPC by sending your correspondence to Violence Policy Center, 1350 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC, 20036. Or you can e-mail us at news@vpc.org.

Unfortunately, because of the Center's limited staff size we are unable to respond individually to each inquiry.

All mail is reprinted as received by the Violence Policy Center.

From: "Allen S. Plymale" (plyguy@surfshop.net)

Thank you for exhibiting myopic extremist views and weakening our nations defensive readiness. I am sure that a man or woman who will be unable to work because of the short sighted attitudes exhibited by "we know what's good for you" liberals, will immediately swear off violence and all will be well on the homefront. I am sorry that the Defense Department was asleep at the wheel and underestimated the domestic threat your organization represents. With the military finding it more and more difficult to maintain positions and retain qualified people of both sexes, we should obviously eliminate the entire DoD structure because of the Tailhook scandal, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Gays & Lesbians in the military,... etc. I'm sure that your best intentions will help us all become more caring and nurturing members of society.

After you destroy this minority institution where less than 1% of our population is in uniform-are you going to/willing to volunteer to join the military? I think not!

I am sorry to say that you have further marginalized and disenfrachised thousands of people. You have unwittingly created an atmosphere which will only result in violence because people will find no options with regard to employment.

-Allen S. Plymale

From: Tud! (tud@n-connect.net)

To whom it may concern, I was wondering who wrote the article available in the fact section "The Second Ammendment:No Right to Keep and Bear Arms". I read the article and frankly was offended at the way things were stated. Many times it seemed to be condemning anyone who owned a weapon personally or wanted to get one.

I am fully aware of what a gun can do. I am a soldier in the Iowa Army National Guard. I have learned exactly what a gun can do. I have also learned firsthand how easily a gun can be lethal. My father a conservitave liscensed gun dealer took his own life with a .38 handgun nearly two years ago. Yet none of these things make me want to restrict the way or type of weapons sold.

If an individual is using the gun for home defense, sport shooting, or other purposes non-harmful to someone than there is nothing wrong with it. I feel that a waiting period on handguns is effective. If someone wants a gun they should be willing to wait for it. Also I feel people should be trained to use weapons. This would reduce the amount of accidental gun deaths. This is the United States of America. This is a free country. This article is taking instances of the use of the Second Ammendment in an odd light. If a court felt that pulling your hair out wasn't unusual punishment for shoplifting I'm sure you would argue it. It is all up to individual interpretation.

Thank you for your timPV1 Isaac M. Helgens

Back Issues of VPC OnLine News