4 THE ASU D Us BO iN eB. Uc rie ee 
are the people who think of a gun as the “equalizer,’ who really believe 
that no home is safe without a gun for self-defense purposes. 
3. The hunters, sportsmen and gun collectors. This group is by far 
the largest of the three, and in most respects the most rational. They, 
unfortunately, have been misled by the other two groups in many respects 
and have some inaccurate information about our constitution, the statistics 
of law enforcement, and the specifics of most gun control proposals. 
With regard to the first two groups, there is not much to say. They are 
exercising their inalienable right to lobby against legislation that they 
oppose. One can only try to keep them to the truth and make the rest of 
society aware of how small they are in size and purpose. It is the third 
group that can and should be brought to the side of favoring gun control 
legislation. 
Let’s take a look at some of the arguments that are advanced in oppo- 
sition to gun control legislation. 
First, it is argued that this infringes on the constitutional right to bear 
arms. THERE. JUST IS NO SUCH RIGHT. Our States@onmettaiicoss 
completely silent on the subject. The Federal Constitution speaks only of 
the right of the state to arm its militia. Case after case—including cases 
in the United States Supreme Court—have specifically held that there is 
no restriction on Congress or the state legislatures to pass any kind of gun 
control legislation they may want. Indeed, either the state or the federal 
government could, without much doubt, flatly prohibit any citizens from 
owning any guns without running afoul of the Constitution. I recall once 
debating this subject with a representative of the State Rifle Association 
and pointing out to him that if he was correct, the Constitution would 
similarly protect the right to bear machine guns. Without a moment’s 
hesitation, he said, ‘“That’s right, and we all ought to learn how to handle 
machine guns. The Russians all know how to, and that’s the only way 
we can protect ourselves.” I assume that he would have answered similarly 
if I had asked him about howitzers and atomic bombs. 
Another “big lie’ about gun control laws is that they are not effective. 
Thus it is argued that the New York Sullivan Act has not been successful 
in holding down crime. New York, with all of its problems AND the 
Sullivan Law, in 1956 had a homicide rate that was approximately one-half 
that of the homicide rate in Dallas. (Needless to say, Dallas has no gun 
control laws at all.) Similarly, the statistics show that New York has a 
lower crime rate per hundred thousand of population in every major 
category of crime as against Chicago. Just how bad can the Sullivan Law 
be? (As a matter of fact, the Sullivan Act is not a particularly well drawn 
statute; the proposals that have been offered, both at the state level and 
city level, in Illinois and Chicago are much, much better drawn and are 
more concerned about the legitimate rights of hunters, sportsmen and 
collectors. 
Next it is argued that a gun control law will disarm the responsible 
citizen who wishes to defend his home and family against the burgler. 
No proposal that has even been offered in Illinois or in Chicago would 
prevent somebody from owning a gun. All they would have to do is 
register the gun. Those who think they can best protect their family by 
snooting it out with a burgler would still be free to do so. It ought to be 
pointed out, however, that there are more accidents caused by children 
