This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2011)

A tower of confiscated smuggled weapons about to be set ablaze in Nairobi, Kenya

Gun control is any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens. Most commonly the guns in question are personal firearms, typically handguns and long guns.

Gun control laws and policies vary greatly around the world with some countries, such as the United Kingdom, having very strict limits on gun possession and others, such as the United States, having relatively modest limits. In some countries, the topic remains a source of intense debate with proponents generally arguing the dangers of widespread gun ownership, and opponents generally arguing individual rights of self-protection as well as individual liberties in general.

Arguments[link]

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2010)

Several studies have examined the correlations between rates of gun ownership and gun-related, as well as overall, homicide and suicide rates within various jurisdictions around the world.^[1][2] Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. There was also a significant though lesser correlation between gun ownership and total homicide rates.^[3] A later study published by Killias in 2001 reported that, while there was a strong correlation between gun-related homicide of women and gun-related assaults against women, this was not the case for similar crimes against men and that "interestingly, no significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects."^[4] This study indicates correlation, but not causality. This could mean that the easier the access to guns leads to more violence. It could also mean that larger amounts of violence lead to a higher level of gun ownership for self defense, or any other independent cause.

A study by Rich et al. on suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and psychiatric patients from San Diego reached the conclusion that increased gun restrictions, while reducing suicide-by-gun, resulted in no net decline in suicides, because of substitution of another method—namely leaping.^[5] Killias argues against the theory of complete substitution, citing a number of studies that have indicated, in his view "rather convincingly", that suicidal candidates far from always turn to another means of suicide if their preferred means is not at hand.^[4]

Resisting governance[link]

Advocates for gun rights often claim that past totalitarian regimes passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation, with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during World War II, as well as some communist states being cited as examples.^[6][7][8] Location and capture of firearms registration records has also long been a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers, and was widely practiced by German and Soviet troops during World War II in the countries they invaded.^[9][10]

The Battles of Lexington and Concord, sometimes known as the Shot heard 'round the world, in 1775, were started in part because General Gage sought to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the populace.^[11]

Gun control opponents often cite the example of the Nazi regime, claiming that once the Nazis had taken and consolidated their power, they proceeded to implement gun control laws to disarm the population and wipe out the opposition, and the genocide of disarmed Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirables" followed.^[9][10][12] Historians have pointed out that the preceding democratic Weimar Republic already had restrictive gun laws, which were actually liberalised by the Nazis when they came to power. According to the Weimar Republic 1928 Law on Firearms & Ammunition, firearms acquisition or carrying permits were “only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and—in the case of a firearms carry permit—only if a demonstration of need is set forth.” The Nazis replaced this law with the Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, which was very similar in structure and wording, but relaxed gun control requirements for the general population. This relaxation included the exemption from regulation of all weapons and ammunition except handguns, the extension of the range of persons exempt from the permit requirement, and the lowering of the age for acquisition of firearms from 20 to 18. It did, however, prohibit manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.^[13] Shortly thereafter, in the additional Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.^[12][13]

Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929, and the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime.^[14]

Self-defense[link]

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (April 2010)

In an extensive series of studies of large, nationally representative samples of crime incidents, criminologist Gary Kleck found that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults.^[15] Other research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons.^[16] There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.^[17]

Kleck has claimed, in his own national survey, and in other surveys with smaller sample sizes, that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns.^[18] However, surveys that ask both about defensive gun use and criminal gun use find that more people report being victims of gun crimes than having used a gun in self defense. ^[19] In a largely approving review of Kleck's book Point Blank (1991) in the journal Political Psychology, Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States.^[20]

The economist John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, states that laws which make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a gun in public places, cause reductions in crime. Lott's results suggest that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. Lott's data came from the FBI's crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties.^[21] Lott's conclusions have been challenged by other researchers. A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, found that people who carry guns are 4.5 times likely to get shot than unarmed people. ^[22]

The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. The most thorough analysis of the impact of gun control laws, by Kleck, covered 18 major types of gun control and every major type of violent crime or violence (including suicide), and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates.^[23] In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do not,^[24] A study by Arthur Kellermann found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide. ^[25] It is well known that suicide is more common in rural areas of the United States where gun ownership is more common. In other countries, other methods of suicide are used at even higher rates than the U.S., so gun availability may affect the method used but not overall suicide rates.^[26][27] However, the higher suicide rates in countries such as Japan may be explained by cultural factors irrelevant to the issue of the relationship between guns and suicide in the US. University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s. While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.

Thirty-nine U.S. states have passed "shall issue" concealed carry legislation of one form or another. In these states, law-abiding citizens (usually after giving evidence of completing a training course) may carry handguns on their person for self-protection. Other states and some cities such as New York may issue permits. Only Illinois, and the District of Columbia have explicit legislation forbidding personal carry. Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska do not require permits to carry concealed weapons, although Alaska retains a shall-issue permit process for reciprocity purposes with other states. Similarly, Arizona retains a shall-issue permit process,^[28] both for reciprocity purposes and because permit holders are allowed to carry concealed handguns in certain places (such as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol) that non-permit holders are not.^[29]

Many supporters of gun-rights consider self-defense to be a fundamental and inalienable human right and believe that firearms are an important tool in the exercise of this right. They consider the prohibition of an effective means of self defense to be unethical. For instance, in Thomas Jefferson’s "Commonplace Book," a quote from Cesare Beccaria reads, "laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."^[30][31][32]

Domestic violence[link]

Gun control advocates claim that the strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence, most often referring to the series of studies by Arthur Kellermann. In response to public suggestions by some advocates of firearms for home defense, that homeowners were at high risk of injury from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann investigated the circumstances surrounding all in-home homicides in three cities of about half a million population each over five years, and found that the risk of a homicide was in fact slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. From the details of the homicides he concluded that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in a fatal injury was much higher when a gun was readily available (essentially all the increased risk being in homes where a handgun was kept loaded and unlocked), compared to a lower rate of fatality in domestic violence not involving a firearm. This increase in mortality, he postulated, was large enough to overwhelm any protective effect the presence of a gun might have by deterring or defending against burglaries or home invasions, which occurred much less frequently. The increased risk averaged over all homes containing guns was similar in size to that correlated with an individual with a criminal record living in the home, but substantially less than that associated with demographic factors known to be risks for violence, such as renting a home versus ownership, or living alone versus with others.^[33]

Critics of Kellermann's work and its use by advocates of gun control point out that since it deliberately ignores crimes of violence occurring outside the home (Kellermann states at the outset that the characteristics of such homicides are much more complex and ambiguous, and would be virtually impossible to classify rigorously enough), it is more directly a study of domestic violence than of gun ownership. Kellermann does in fact include in the conclusion of his 1993 paper several paragraphs referring to the need for further study of domestic violence and its causes and prevention. Researchers John Lott, Gary Kleck and many others dispute Kellermann's work.^{[34][35][36][37]}

Kleck showed that no more than a handful of the homicides that Kellermann studied were committed with guns belonging to the victim or members of his or her household, and thus it was implausible that victim household gun ownership contributed to their homicide. Instead, the association that Kellermann found between gun ownership and victimization merely reflected the widely accepted notion that people who live in more dangerous circumstances are more likely to be murdered, but also were more likely to have acquired guns for self-protection prior to their death.^[38] Kleck and others argue that guns being used to protect property, save lives, and deter crime without killing the criminal accounts for the large majority of defensive gun uses.^[39][40][41]

Armed forces' reserves and reservist training[link]

In several countries, such as in Finland, firearm politics and gun control are directly linked on the armed forces' reserves and reservist training. This is especially true in countries which base their armies on conscription; since every able-bodied citizen is basically a soldier, they are expected to be able to handle the gun reasonably, and be able to practice for the time of need.

Switzerland is a noted example of a country in which, due to the country's conscription and militia traditions, firearm possession is widespread. Owing to Switzerland's history, all able-bodied male Swiss citizens aged between 21 and 50 (55 for officers) are issued assault rifles and ammunition in order to perform their annual military obligations. Because of this, Switzerland is one of the few nations in the world with a higher rate of firearm possession than the United States.^[42] Also, Switzerland has a relatively low rate of gun crime.^[42] The comparatively low level of violent crime, despite the liberal gun laws, is demonstrated by the fact that Swiss politicians rarely have the same level of police protection as their counterparts in the United States and other countries, as was noted following the fatal shooting of several government officials in the Swiss canton of Zug in September 2001.^[43] Some authors argue that Switzerland's militia tradition of "every man a soldier" contributed to the preservation of its neutrality during the Second World War, when it was not invaded by Nazi Germany because the military cost to the Nazis would have been too high.^[44][45][46] However, this claim has been disputed by historians who cite the existence of detailed invasion plans, which rated the overall Swiss defense capacity as low.^[47][48]

Civil rights[link]

Some see gun ownership as a civil right. This view is common in the United States where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment protects gun owners when it states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."^[49] This view is less common throughout the rest of the world.

Jeff Snyder is a spokesman for the view that gun possession is a civil right, and that therefore arguments about whether gun restrictions reduce or increase violent crime are beside the point: "I am not here engaged in...recommending...policy prescriptions on the basis of the promised or probable results [on crime]...Thus these essays are not fundamentally about guns at all. They are, foremost, about...the kind of people we intend to be...and the ethical and political consequences of decisions [to control firearms]."^[50] He terms the main principle behind gun control "the instrumental theory of salvation:" that, lacking the ability to change the violent intent in criminals, we often shift focus to the instrument in an attempt to "limit our ability to hurt ourselves, and one another."^[51] His work discusses the consequences that flow from conditioning the liberties of all citizens upon the behavior of criminals.

Some of the earliest gun-control legislation at the state level were the "black codes" that replaced the "slave codes" after the Civil War, attempting to prevent blacks' having access to the full rights of citizens, including the right to keep and bear arms.^[52] Laws of this type later used racially neutral language to survive legal challenge, but were expected to be enforced against blacks rather than whites.^[53]

A favorite target of gun control is so-called "junk guns," which are generally cheaper and therefore more accessible to the poor. However, some civil rights organizations favor tighter gun regulations. In 2003, the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun manufacturers for creating what it called a "public nuisance" through the "negligent marketing" of handguns, which included models commonly described as Saturday night specials. The suit alleged that handgun manufacturers and distributors were guilty of marketing guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. "The gun industry has refused to take even basic measures to keep criminals and prohibited persons from obtaining firearms," NAACP President/CEO Kweisi Mfume said. "The industry must be as responsible as any other and it must stop dumping firearms in over-saturated markets. The obvious result of dumping guns is that they will increasingly find their way into the hands of criminals."^[54]

The NAACP lawsuit was dismissed in 2003.^[55] It, and several similar suits—some brought by municipalities seeking re-imbursement for medical costs associated with criminal shootings—were portrayed by gun-rights groups as "nuisance suits," aimed at driving gun manufacturers (especially smaller firms) out of business through court costs alone, as damage awards were not expected.^[56] These suits prompted the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in October, 2005.

Martin Luther King said, "By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim... we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes."^[57] At the same time, Dr. King applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm after his house was bombed in 1956.^[58] Professor Adam Winkler recounts that "William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as 'an arsenal.'"^[58]

Similarly, the Dalai Lama said "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.

Mahatma Gandhi said "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." in his autobiography.

Civic duty[link]

Some proponents of private gun ownership argue that an armed citizens' militia can help deter crime and tyranny, as police are primarily a reactive force whose main loyalty is to the government which pays their wages. The Militia Information Service (MIS) contends that gun ownership is a civic duty in the context of membership in the militia, much like voting, neither of which they believe should be restricted to government officials in a true democracy.^[59] MIS also states that the people need to maintain the power of the sword so they can fulfil their duty, implicit in the social contract, to protect the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, much as individual citizens have a legal and ethical duty to protect dependents under their care, such as a child, elderly parent, or disabled spouse.^[60]

Statistics[link]

Private ownership[link]

According to statistics available from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, of nearly 31,000 firearm-related deaths in 2005, suicides account for 55 percent of deaths in the United States whereas homicides account for 40 percent of deaths, accidents account for three percent, and the remaining two percent were legal killings.

While many shootings occur in the course of a mutual argument of passion, others occur where a partner or family member of a "romantic" or familial relationship, who is an ongoing victim of domestic physical abuse or sexual abuse, uses the force of a firearm in self-defense action against a perpetrator who also happens to be known to or related to the victim. As a corollary, in such policy advertising campaigns, the comparison of "domestic" gun casualties is usually not accompanied by murder and assault prosecution numbers stemming from the shootings occurring in that context. In many of the latter cases, the victim firing in self-defense is frequently a woman or youth victim of a more physically powerful abuser. In those situations gun rights advocates argue that the firearm arguably becomes an equalizer against the lethal and disabling force frequently exercised by the abusers.^[61]

Many gun control opponents point to statistics in advertising campaigns purporting that "approximately 9 or so children are killed by people discharging firearms every day across the US,"^{[citation needed]} and argue that this statistic is seldom accompanied by a differentiation of those children killed by individuals from unintentional discharges and stray bullets, and of those "children," under the age of majority—which is 18-21 in the U.S.—who are killed while acting as aggressors in street gang related mutual combat or while committing crimes,^[62][63] many of which are seen as arising from the War on Drugs. There is further controversy regarding courts, trials, and the resulting sentences of these mostly "young men" as adults despite them not having reached the age of consent.

Gun safety and gun laws[link]

The importance of gun safety education has a mitigating effect on the occurrence of accidental discharges involving children. So much importance is not placed upon the vicarious liability case law assigning strict liability to the gun owner for firearms casualties occurring when a careless gun owner loses proper custody and control of a firearm.

In an argument against gun control, the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-profit conservative think tank, reported the following statistics.^[64] Please note that most of the following has come under questioning^[who?] of authenticity and officially remains unproven.^{[citation needed]}

• New York State is one of many states that have adopted an Assault Weapon ban, which prohibits residents to purchase or own any assault rifles that fall under the description of, "large capacity ammunition feeding device." This includes fully automatic weapons. ^[65]
• As of 2006, approximately 35% of American households have a gun in them. About 22% of Americans actually own a gun.^[66]
• Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime. It has subsequently ended its ban as a result of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case, upon a federal lawsuit by the National Rifle Association being filed the day after Heller was entered.
• Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.^[67]
• Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.—and each has or, in the cases of Detroit (until 2001) and D.C. (2008) had, a requirement for a license on private handguns or an effective outright ban (in the case of Chicago).^[68]
• In England, Wales and Scotland, the private ownership of most handguns was banned in 1997 following a gun massacre at a school in Dunblane and an earlier gun massacre in Hungerford in which the combined deaths was 35 and injured 30. Gun ownership and gun crime was already at a low level, which made these slaughters particularly concerning. Only an estimated 57,000 people —0.1% of the population owned such weapons prior to the ban.^[69] In the UK, only 8 per cent of all criminal homicides are committed with a firearm of any kind.^[70] In 2005/6 the number of such deaths in England and Wales (population 53.3 million) was just 50, a reduction of 36 per cent on the year before and lower than at any time since 1998/9. The lowest rate of gun crime was in 2004/4 whilst the highest was in 1994.^{[citation needed]} There was, however, a noticeable temporary increase in gun crime in the years immediately after the ban, though this has since fallen back. The reason for the increase has not been investigated thoroughly but it is thought that 3 factors may have raised the number of guns in circulation. These are, the reduction in gun crime in Northern Ireland (which led to guns coming from there to the criminal black market in England); guns (official issue or confiscated) acquired by military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan; and guns coming from Eastern Europe after the fall of the iron curtain.^{[citation needed]} Firearm injuries in England and Wales also noticeably increased in this time.^[71] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air guns, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including airsoft guns).^[72] Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005. In Scotland the picture has been more varied with no pattern of rise or fall appearing.^{[citation needed]}
• Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were heavily restricted and a special Gun Court established.^[73] However a high proportion of the illegal guns in Jamaica can be attributed to guns smuggled in from the United states where they are more freely available.^[74]

History[link]

Gun control in the United States[link]

Before the American Civil War ended, state slave codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After slavery in the U.S. was abolished, states persisted in prohibiting Black people from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms.^[75]

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most states turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."^[76] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns in order to price destitute individuals out of the gun market.

In the 1990s, gun control laws continued to be enacted:

• Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
• Public housing residents, approximately three million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
• "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the United States Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."
• In certain communities with a history of good law enforcement after gun control legislation was introduced the crime rates, paticuarly the homicide rates, have decreased. Pro gun control advocates say this is proof gun control works as long as its enforced. But nothing can be said either way 100% of the time.

Gun control in Australia[link]

In response to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence^[77] were adopted under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws.

The National Firearms Agreement banned all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and created a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls. Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the Federal Government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 that provided the revenue for the National Firearms Program through a one-off 0.2% increase in the Medicare levy. Known as the gun buy-back scheme, it started across the country on the 1 October 1996 and concluded on the 30 September 1997^[78] to purchase and destroy all semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. The buyback was predicted to cost $A500 million and had wide community support.

In 2002, the Monash University shooting led the federal government to urge state governments to again review handgun laws, and, as a result, amended legislation was adopted in all states and territories. Changes included a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.65 mm), a barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers, and even stricter probation and attendance requirements for sporting target shooters.^{[citation needed]} In the state of Victoria $A21 million compensation was paid for confiscating 18,124 target pistols, and 15,184 replacement pistols were imported.^{[citation needed]} .

One government policy was to compensate shooters for giving up the sport. Approximately 25% of pistol shooters took this offer, and relinquished their licences and their right to own pistols for sport for five years.^{[citation needed]}

There is contention over the effects of the gun control laws in Australia, with some researchers reporting significant drops in gun-related crime,^[79] and others reporting no significant effect in gun related or overall crime rates.^[80][81][82]

See also[link]

• Concealed carry
• Constitutional carry (in USA)
• Gun politics
• Gunfire locator
• Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)
• National Rifle Association (NRA)
• Second Amendment Sisters
• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

References[link]

External links[link]

• Packing.org - concealed carry law information
• A Human Right
• Gun Owners of America
• Gun Ownership in India
• GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues
• Guns Save Lives
• Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
• Keep and Bear Arms
• Libertarian Party
• National Rifle Association of America
• Pink Pistols
• Second Amendment Foundation
• Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah

Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan in 2011
Born	Piers Stefan O'Meara (1965-03-30) 30 March 1965 (age 47) Guildford, Surrey, England[1]
Nationality	British
Education	Chailey School Preparatory School
Alma mater	Harlow College
Occupation	Broadcaster, panellist, journalist, talk show host
Years active	1985–present
Employer	South London News (1985–88) The Sun (1989–94) News of the World (1994–95) Daily Mirror (1995–2004)
Known for	Newspaper editing Television work
Height	6 feet 1 inch (1.85 m)[2]
Television	Britain's Got Talent America's Got Talent Winner of The Celebrity Apprentice The Dark Side of Fame with Piers Morgan Piers Morgan On... Piers Morgan's Life Stories Piers Morgan Tonight
Spouse	Marion Shalloe (m. 1991–2008) «start: (1991)–end+1: (2009)»"Marriage: Marion Shalloe to Piers Morgan" Location: (linkback:http://en-wiki.pop.wn.com/index.php/Piers_Morgan) (divorced) Celia Walden (m. 2010) «start: (2010-06-24)»"Marriage: Celia Walden to Piers Morgan" Location: (linkback:http://en-wiki.pop.wn.com/index.php/Piers_Morgan)
Children	Spencer, Stanley, Albert
Parents	Eamon Vincent O'Meara (deceased) Gabrielle O'Meara
Website
www.officialpiersmorgan.com

Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan (born Piers Stefan O'Meara; 30 March 1965), known professionally as Piers Morgan, is a British journalist and television presenter. He is editorial director of First News, a national newspaper for children.

Morgan branched into television mainly as a presenter, but has become best known as a judge or contestant in reality television programmes. In the UK, he was a judge on Britain's Got Talent. Morgan is best known in the United States as a judge on the show America's Got Talent, and as the winner of The Celebrity Apprentice. On 17 January 2011, he began hosting Piers Morgan Tonight for CNN in the timeslot previously occupied by Larry King Live after the retirement of host Larry King.^[3]

Morgan has authored eight books, including three volumes of memoirs.

Early life[link]

Piers Morgan was born on 30 March 1965, in Guildford, Surrey, England, to Eamon Vincent O'Meara, a dentist, of Dorking, Surrey,^[4] and Gabrielle Georgina Sybille (née Oliver).^[5] His father died when he was one year old; his mother subsequently remarried. He has three older siblings.^[6] His ancestry includes Irish, Portuguese, Scottish, and English.^[5][7] Morgan was raised Catholic.^[8] Named Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan by his stepfather, Morgan attended an independent school called Cumnor House^[9] from the ages of seven to thirteen, and then Chailey School, a comprehensive secondary school in Chailey, near Lewes, East Sussex, followed by Lewes Priory School for VI form.^[10] Morgan studied Journalism at Harlow College. After a brief career at Lloyds of London, he joined the Surrey and South London Newspaper Group in 1985,^[11] where he worked as a reporter on the South London News, and the Streatham and Tooting News. Morgan was recruited (he says headhunted by editor Kelvin MacKenzie) to join The Sun newspaper, specifically to work on the Bizarre column.

Career[link]

In newspapers[link]

Morgan's first major position in national media was as de facto editor of The Sun's show business column, Bizarre, under the editorship of Kelvin MacKenzie. In 1994, aged 28, he was appointed editor of News of the World by Rupert Murdoch, becoming the youngest national newspaper editor in more than half a century.^[12] He quickly gained notoriety for his invasive, thrusting style and lack of concern for celebrities' right to privacy, claiming that they could not manipulate the media to further their own ends without accepting the consequences of a two way deal. Morgan's autobiography The Insider states that he left the News of the World of his own choice and somewhat against owner Rupert Murdoch's wishes when he was offered the job of Editor at the Daily Mirror.

As editor of the Mirror, in 1996 Morgan was widely criticised and forced to apologise for the headline "Achtung! Surrender" a day before England met Germany in a semi-final of the Euro '96 football championships.^[13]

In 2000, he was the subject of an investigation after Suzy Jagger wrote a story in The Daily Telegraph revealing that he had bought £20,000 worth of shares in the computer company Viglen soon before the Mirror 's 'City Slickers' column tipped Viglen as a good buy.^[14] Morgan was found by the Press Complaints Commission to have breached the Code of Conduct on financial journalism, but kept his job. The 'City Slickers' columnists, Anil Bhoyrul and James Hipwell, were both found to have committed further breaches of the Code, and were sacked before the inquiry. In 2004, further enquiry by the Department of Trade and Industry cleared Morgan from any charges.^[15] On 7 December 2005 Bhoyrul and Hipwell were convicted of conspiracy to breach the Financial Services Act. During the trial it emerged that Morgan had bought £67,000 worth of Viglen shares, emptying his bank account and investing under his wife's name too.^[16]

In 2002, the Mirror attempted to move mid-market, claiming to eschew the more trivial stories of show-business and gossip. Morgan rehired John Pilger, who had been sacked during Robert Maxwell's ownership of the Mirror titles. Despite such changes, Morgan was unable to halt the paper's decline in circulation, a decline shared by its direct tabloid rivals The Sun and the Daily Star.^{[citation needed]}

Morgan was fired from the Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.^[17] Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes. Under the headline "SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED", the Mirror responded that it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and apologised for the publication of the photographs.^[18]

In May 2005, in partnership with Matthew Freud, he gained ownership of Press Gazette, a media trade publication together with its 'cash cow' the British Press Awards, in a deal worth £1 million.^[19][20] This ownership was cited as one of the reasons many major newspapers boycotted the 2006 awards.^[21] Press Gazette entered administrative receivership toward the end of 2006,^[22] before being sold to a trade buyer.

On 4 May 2006, Morgan launched First News, a weekly paper aimed at seven to fourteen-year-olds. Upon its launch Morgan claimed that the paper was to be "Britain's first national newspaper for children",^[23] although this claim was without foundation: other newspapers aimed at young audiences have included The Boy's Newspaper (1880–1882), The Children's Newspaper (1919–1965), and Early Times (launched in the late 1980s). Morgan was editorial director at First News, responsible for bringing in celebrity involvement. He referred to the role as "editorial overlord and frontman".^[24]

In 2007, Morgan was filmed falling off a Segway, breaking three ribs. Simon Cowell and others made much of Morgan's previous comment in 2003, in the Daily Mail, after former U.S. President George W. Bush fell off a Segway, that "You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you, Mr. President?"^[25][26][27]

In television[link]

Morgan's career has diversified in recent years into television presentation and proprietorship. In 2003, he presented a three-part television documentary series for the BBC titled The Importance of Being Famous, about fame and the manner in which celebrities are covered by modern media.

He has co-hosted his own current affairs interview show on Channel 4 with Amanda Platell, Morgan and Platell. Morgan and Platell were put together because of their opposing political angles. Platell would interrogate guests from the right-wing, Morgan from the left-wing.^[28] The show was dropped after three series allegedly because of poor viewing figures, though the chairman of Channel 4, Luke Johnson, was reported not to like the programme.

Throughout 2006, Morgan appeared as a judge on the American television show America's Got Talent alongside Brandy Norwood and David Hasselhoff on NBC. Morgan was chosen by Simon Cowell as a replacement for himself because of the conditions of his American Idol contract. Morgan appeared as a celebrity contestant on Comic Relief Does The Apprentice in 2007, to raise money for Comic Relief. During filming, he and Alastair Campbell reduced fellow contestant Trinny Woodall to tears when they tried to sabotage her team's event, and were involved in a brawl with her.^[29] Upon his team losing, Morgan was selected by Sir Alan Sugar as the contestant to be fired.^[30]

Also in 2007, he appeared as a judge for the second season of America's Got Talent and also appeared as a judge on the British version of the show, Britain's Got Talent on ITV1, alongside Amanda Holden and Simon Cowell. He also presented You Can't Fire Me, I'm Famous on BBC One. In January 2008, Morgan fronted a three-part documentary about Sandbanks for ITV1^[31] entitled Piers Morgan on Sandbanks.^[32]

Morgan was the winner of the U.S. celebrity version of The Apprentice, in 2008. The most memorable feature of the programme was the rowdy disagreements he had with fellow contestant Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth. This was resolved in Morgan's favour on 6 March, after her team was defeated by Morgan's in the biggest margin of victory in Apprentice history. Morgan ended up the overall winner, being named Celebrity Apprentice on 27 March, ahead of fellow finalist, American country music star, Trace Adkins (whom he surprised by kissing him on the cheek just moments after an on-air spat with Stallworth) and having raised substantially more cash than all the other contestants combined.^[33]

In May 2008, Morgan signed a two year "golden handcuffs" deal with ITV reportedly worth £2 million per year. As part of the deal, Morgan would continue as a judge on Britain's Got Talent for at least two more series and front a new chat show. He will also make some interview specials, plus three more documentaries from various countries. Morgan's golden handcuffs deal is the first signing by ITV's new director of television, Peter Fincham.^[34]

On 8 September 2008, a new series started, The Dark Side of Fame with Piers Morgan, produced by BBC Scotland.

Morgan returned to ITV1 in February 2009, with the series, Piers Morgan On..., which saw him visit Dubai, Monte Carlo and Hollywood.^[35] The series positioned Morgan as a modern day Alan Whicker and received strong viewing figures for the channel.^[36] The programme returned for a second series in 2010^[37] when Morgan visited Las Vegas,^[38] Marbella,^[39] and Shanghai.^[40] In the Shanghai episode, broadcast on 29 June 2010, Morgan consumed foie gras in a restaurant and visited a Tesco store selling live terrapins. Since both foie gras production and live reptile sales are considered cruel, Morgan came under criticism on social networking sites, including Twitter.^[41] Ironically, any complaints on Twitter about China's animal cruelty record will not be visible in the communist country, since Twitter itself is banned there,^[42] as Morgan pointed out in the same programme.

In 2009 Morgan's show, Piers Morgan's Life Stories, began on ITV1 with Sharon Osbourne as the subject of the first episode.^[43] Other guests on the programme have included Cheryl Tweedy^[44] and the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown.^[45]

On 8 September 2010, CNN announced Morgan would replace Larry King in the network's evening line-up, with his show Piers Morgan Tonight, beginning 17 January 2011.^[46][47] His show on CNN, Piers Morgan Tonight, has been described by Hank Stuever as "droning," "unnecessary," and "rubbish."^[48]

Feuds[link]

Ian Hislop[link]

Morgan appeared as a guest on the satirical news quiz Have I Got News for You in an episode transmitted on 24 May 1996.^[49] In it, show regular Ian Hislop and Morgan failed to keep their mutual contempt off-screen. Hislop accused Morgan of having him (Hislop) followed and having his house watched. The conflict escalated and at one point the host, Angus Deayton, asked if they wished to go outside and have a fight. Later on, guest panelist Clive Anderson confronted Morgan commenting "the last time I was rude to you, you sent photographers to my doorstep the next day", to which Piers Morgan retorted, "You won't see them this time." Hislop commented "He is charming isn't he", and Morgan replied, "Don't try the popularity line with me, Hislop", before appealing to the audience: "Does anyone actually like him?" The audience responded loudly in favour of Hislop.^[50] "'We're about to start exposing the moon-faced midget'", Morgan was quoted as saying in 2002, to which Hislop responded "'all he's been offering for information about my private life is a £50 reward. My friends think that's not nearly enough.'"^[51]

In 2007, Hislop chose Morgan as one of his pet hates on Room 101.^[52][53] In doing so, Hislop spoke of the history of animosity between himself and Morgan and revealed that after their exchange on Have I Got News For You (which was shown as a clip), Morgan's reporters were tasked with trying to get gossip on Hislop's private life (including phoning acquaintances of Hislop), and photographers were sent in case Hislop did anything untoward or embarrassing while in their presence. Neither the reporters nor the photographers succeeded. Hislop also revealed that Morgan had attempted to quell the feud in an article in The Mail On Sunday, saying, "The war is over. I'm officially calling an end to hostilities, at least from my end. I'm sure it won't stop him carrying on his 'Piers Moron' stuff."^[54] Hislop, who had been engaged in work on a First World War documentary at the time, responded by asking "Is that an armistice or an unconditional surrender?" Although the show's host Paul Merton agreed to put Morgan into Room 101, he was comically rejected as being "too toxic", even for Room 101.^[52][55]

Jeremy Clarkson[link]

In October 2003, journalist and television personality Jeremy Clarkson reportedly emptied a glass of water over Morgan during the last flight of Concorde.^[56] In March 2004, at the British Press Awards, Clarkson punched Morgan three times in a clash over The Mirror's coverage of his private life, and accusations that Clarkson did not write for his column in The Sun himself.^[56] Morgan reported on a rapprochement with Clarkson in the epilogue of his book, Don't You Know Who I Am?.

Madonna[link]

In December 2010, Morgan announced to the Daily Express that he will not be scheduling Madonna to appear on Piers Morgan Tonight. Morgan reportedly told the British newspaper that, while he wanted to get U.S. President Barack Obama and Mel Gibson on his show, he was not bothered about Madonna. Morgan said, "She is so boring. She is too vegan for TV. We have Lady Gaga now so Madonna is banned from my show.” In response, Madonna's publicist quipped, "Madonna doesn't know who Piers Morgan is but she's a big fan of Lady Gaga."^[57]

Alan Sugar[link]

In December 2010 Morgan had an ongoing Twitter argument with Alan Sugar, which resulted in a competition to see who could attract more followers by Christmas Day.^[58]

Phone hacking allegations[link]

In July 2011 the political blogger Paul Staines alleged that Morgan published a story while knowing it to have been obtained by phone hacking while editor of the Daily Mirror in 2002.^[59] Morgan is also alleged to have close ties with the Rupert Murdoch family and defended them in the media against suggestions that they were more involved in the News International phone hacking scandal than they claimed.^[60] Morgan described in a 2006 article he wrote for the Daily Mail how he had heard tapes of messages that Paul McCartney had left for his wife, Heather Mills, on her mobile phone. Morgan wrote that "Stories soon emerged that the marriage was in trouble - at one stage I was played a tape of a message Paul had left for Heather on her mobile phone. It was heartbreaking. The couple had clearly had a tiff, Heather had fled to India, and Paul was pleading with her to come back. He sounded lonely, miserable and desperate, and even sang "We Can Work It Out" into the answerphone."^[61] He came under criticism for his "boasting" about phone hacking from Conservative MP Louise Mensch, who has since apologised for these accusations.^[62]

During Morgan's tenure as editor, the Daily Mirror was advised by Steven Nott that voicemail interception was possible by means of a standard PIN code. Despite staff initially expressing enthusiasm for the story it did not appear in the paper, although it did subsequently feature in a South Wales Argus article and on BBC Radio 5 Live in October 1999. On 18 July 2011 Nott was visited by officers of Operation Weeting. The Daily Mirror's publishers Trinity Mirror declined to comment when approached by The Independent for its article of 6 August 2011.^[63]

On 20 December Morgan was a witness by satellite link from the United States at the Leveson Inquiry.^[64] While he did "not believe to the best of my recollection" that phone hacking had occurred at the Mirror, he admitted to listening to the voice mail left by Paul McCartney for Heather Mills, but refused to "discuss where he was played that tape or who played it - it would compromise a source."^[64] Appearing as a witness at the same Inquiry on 9 February 2012, Mills was asked under oath if she had ever made a recording of Paul McCartney's phonecalls or answerphone messages and had ever played it to Piers Morgan or "anybody else", she replied: "Never".^[65] Mills told the inquiry that Morgan was "a man that has written nothing but awful things about me for years and would have relished telling the inquiry if she had played a personal voicemail message to him".^[66]

On 23 May 2012, the Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman was a witness at the Leveson Inquiry. He recalled a lunch with the Mirror editor in September 2002 at which Morgan outlined the means of hacking into a mobile phone.^[67]

Personal life[link]

Morgan married Marion Shalloe in July 1991 in Hampshire. They have three sons: Spencer William (born in 1993), Stanley Christopher (born in 1997) and Albert Douglas (Bertie) (born in 2000).^[68] Morgan and Shalloe divorced in 2008.^{[citation needed]} He was linked romantically to The Guardian columnist Marina Hyde, and his second wife is The Daily Telegraph's columnist and feature writer, Celia Walden,^[69] who is the daughter of the former Conservative MP George Walden.^[70] Morgan and Walden married in June 2010. On November 25, 2011, the Mail Online reported that Celia Walden gave birth to a baby girl at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Beverly Hills. It is her first child, while Morgan has become a father for the fourth time. The couple have named their daughter Elise.^[71]

Morgan is a lifelong fan of cricket. Corresponding with Sir Donald "Don" Bradman as a child, and being a promising early youthful fast bowler, he has played for his local side in Newick since 1978. Every year since 2000 he has organised a game between a Morgan family team and the Newick side, which includes a famous "ringer" - 2008's ringer was England batsman Kevin Pietersen. Morgan described the 2008 game as "the best day of my life."^[72] Morgan is also a fan of Arsenal F.C.^[73]

Books[link]

• Morgan, Piers; John Sachs (1991). Secret Lives. Blake. ISBN 0-905846-95-8. 
• Morgan, Piers; John Sachs (1991). Private Lives of the Stars. Angus and Robertson. ISBN 0-207-16941-1. 
• Morgan, Piers (1992). To Dream a Dream: Amazing Life of Phillip Schofield. Blake. ISBN 1-85782-006-1. 
• Morgan, Piers (1993). "Take That": Our Story. Boxtree. ISBN 1-85283-839-6. 
• Morgan, Piers (1994). "Take That": On the Road. Boxtree. ISBN 1-85283-396-3. 
• Morgan, Piers (2004). Va Va Voom!: A Year with Arsenal 2003-04. Methuen. ISBN 0-413-77451-1. 
• Morgan, Piers (2005). The Insider: The Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade. Ebury Press. ISBN ISBN 0-09-190849-3. 
• Morgan, Piers (2007). Don't You Know Who I am?. 
• Morgan, Piers (2009). God Bless America: Misadventures of a Big mouth Brit. Ebury Press. ISBN 978-0-09-191393-9. 

References[link]

External links[link]

• Piers Morgan's Official Website
• Profile: Piers Morgan BBC News, 14 May 2004
• Piers Morgan at the Internet Movie Database
• Piers Morgan on Twitter
• "Desert Island Discs". Desert Island Discs. 7 June 2009. BBC. Radio 4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00krkct.