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

Louis Carl "Lou" Dobbs^[1] (born September 24, 1945) is an American journalist, radio host, television host on the Fox Business Network, and author. He anchored CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight until November 2009 when he announced on the air that he would leave the 24-hour cable news television network.^[2][3]

He was born in Texas and lived there and in Idaho during his childhood. After graduating from Harvard University, Dobbs worked in government and banking before becoming a news reporter for several local media outlets. He had worked with CNN since its founding in 1980, serving as a reporter and vice president. He was the host and managing editor for CNN's Moneyline, which premiered in 1980 and was renamed Lou Dobbs Tonight in 2003. Dobbs resigned from CNN in 1999, rejoined in 2000, and resigned again in November 2009. He also hosts a syndicated radio show, Lou Dobbs Radio and has written several books since 2001.

Dobbs describes himself as an "independent populist" and is known for his opposition to NAFTA and support for immigration enforcement. For his reporting, he has won Emmy, Peabody, and Cable ACE awards.

After Dobbs left CNN in 2009, he gave an interview where he did not rule out the possibility of running for President of the United States in 2012, saying the final decision would rest with his wife, although former Senator Dean Barkley has encouraged Dobbs to run.^[4][5][6] Dobbs also acknowledged, via a spokesperson, that he is also considering a run for the United States Senate in New Jersey in 2012.^[7]

Background and family life[link]

Born in Childress County, Texas, Dobbs is the son of Frank Dobbs, a co-owner of a propane business, and Lydia Mae (née Hensley), a bookkeeper.^[1] When Dobbs was 12, his father's propane business failed and the family moved to Rupert, Idaho.^[8] He attended Minico High School in Minidoka County, where he played tackle on the football team and served as student body president and played the souzaphone in the band.^[9] Although accepted at the University of Idaho and Idaho State University, he was persuaded by the staff at Minico High to apply to Harvard University, where he was accepted and later graduated from with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics in 1967.^[9]

After graduating, Dobbs worked for federal anti-poverty programs in Boston and Washington, D.C. He briefly attended law school at the University of Idaho in Moscow, then worked as a cash-management specialist for Union Bank in Los Angeles. He married his high school sweetheart in 1969, and in 1970 their first son was born. Dobbs moved to Yuma, Arizona and got a job as a police and fire reporter for KBLU-AM. By the mid-1970s he was a television anchor and reporter in Phoenix, and he later joined Seattle's KING-TV. In 1979, he was contacted by a recruiter for Ted Turner, who was in the process of forming CNN.^[8] He is married to his second wife, Debi Lee Segura, a Mexican-American who was, at one time, a CNN sports anchor. The couple has had four children together.^[10] Dobbs resides on a 300-acre (1.2 km²) horse farm in Sussex County, New Jersey.^[10]

Career[link]

CNN[link]

Dobbs joined CNN when it launched in 1980, serving as its chief economics correspondent and as host of the business news program Moneyline on CNN. Dobbs also served as a corporate executive for CNN, as its executive vice president and as a member of CNN's executive committee. He founded CNN fn (CNN financial news), serving as its president and anchoring the program Business Unusual, which examined business creativity and leadership.^[11]

Departure and founding of Space.com[link]

Dobbs repeatedly clashed with Rick Kaplan, who became president of CNN in 1997. Dobbs said Kaplan, noted friend of then president Bill Clinton, was "clearly partisan" and "was pushing Clinton stories," while Kaplan said Dobbs was "a very difficult person to work with."^[8]

On April 20, 1999, CNN was covering Clinton's speech in Littleton, Colorado, following the Columbine High School massacre. Dobbs ordered the producer to cut away from the speech and return to broadcast Moneyline.^[8] Dobbs was countermanded by Kaplan, who ordered CNN to return to the speech. Kaplan later said, "Tell me what journalistic reason there was not to cover the president at Columbine soon after the shootings? Everyone else was doing it." Dobbs announced on the air that "CNN President Rick Kaplan wants us to return to Littleton." A few days later, Dobbs announced that he was leaving the network to start Space.com, a website devoted to astronautical news.^[8] Dobbs was subsequently replaced as host of Moneyline by Willow Bay and Stuart Varney.^[12]

Return to CNN[link]

Kaplan left CNN in August 2000, and Dobbs returned the following year, at the behest of his friend and CNN founder Ted Turner, becoming host and managing editor of the new and initially more general news program Lou Dobbs Reporting, which later became CNN News Sunday Morning. He also regained the helm of the newly renamed Lou Dobbs Moneyline (which became Lou Dobbs Tonight in June 2003).^[13]

Radio[link]

From 2009 to 2012, Dobbs hosted Lou Dobbs Radio on United Stations Radio Networks. The three hour daily show had affiliates in several major markets, including its flagship station (WOR) in New York City, Washington D.C. (WHFS), Miami (WZAB-AM) and the San Francisco Bay Area (KDOW), as well as stations such as WGNY-AM in Newburgh, New York. The show was guest-centered and featured political discussion and listener calls. It aired from 2 to 5 p.m. Eastern, directly competing with The Sean Hannity Show and The Dave Ramsey Show. Dobbs also hosts the financially themed Lou Dobbs Minute on the same network.

In June 2008, Dobbs reached an agreement with Business TalkRadio Network to carry a rebroadcast of the show from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern, displacing Bruce Williams. Dobbs's show is also carried live on CRN Digital Talk Radio Networks, on CRN4.

Dobbs was among the hosts who tried out for the position vacated by the cancellation of Imus in the Morning on WFAN, a position that was eventually filled by Boomer and Carton in the Morning. Dobbs mentioned on his radio show that he is currently seeking a position in the US Department of Treasury during the economic crisis. He stated that he believed he could "do more good than the clowns currently in position."

Dobbs also is a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report, and the New York Daily News.^[8]

Exit from CNN[link]

On the November 11, 2009 edition of his nightly broadcast Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs announced his immediate departure from CNN, ending a nearly thirty year career at the network, citing plans to "pursue new opportunities."^[2][3] CNN President Jon Klein said that Dobbs' departure was not a result of organized opposition to Dobbs' viewpoints.^[14][15] His departure came less than two weeks after an incident in which a shot was fired at his home.^[16]

In July 2009, controversy around Dobbs began when he was the only mainstream news anchor to give airtime to the birther conspiracy theory.^[17] Several liberal advocacy groups, including Media Matters, and the Southern Poverty Law Center criticized Dobbs for his reporting. The controversy eventually caused CNN President Jon Klein to rein Dobbs in via an internal memorandum.^[18] In September, advocates challenged Dobbs for appearing at a FAIR conference (Federation for American Immigration Reform), a leading anti-illegal immigration group. Multiple campaigns were launched, including Drop Dobbs (NDN, Media Matters), and Basta Dobbs (Presente.org).^[19]

The campaigns also attacked CNN for alleged hypocrisy towards Latinos, citing CNN's "Latino in America" special as incompatible with their continued support of Dobbs. The campaigns generated considerable anti-Dobbs press,^[20] and are credited by some^[who?] as pushing Dobbs out.

Dobbs was reportedly paid $8 million in severance pay when he left CNN prior to his contract being due for renewal.^[21]

Since his resignation from CNN, Dobbs has made regular appearances to discuss issues on other news network programs including CNBC's The Kudlow Report and Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor. Dobbs continues to broadcast his American radio show and publish his syndicated column.

Current show on Fox Business Network[link]

On November 10, 2010, Fox Business Network announced that Dobbs will host a show on the channel.^[22] The network announced on March 3, 2011 the start date, show title, and time slot of Dobbs' new show. The show is titled Lou Dobbs Tonight and began on March 14, 2011, airing at 7 PM Eastern. That is the same title and time slot that Dobbs' old CNN show had.^[23]

Cameo appearances[link]

On October 5, 2010, Dobbs made a guest appearance on an episode of The Good Wife, entitled "Double Jeopardy",^[24] in which he plays himself as a client in search of a new law firm to represent his legal interests.

Political views[link]

In his early career Dobbs was known as a fiscal conservative. He is a critic of the "excesses of capitalism," which he identifies as globalization, offshore outsourcing, runaway film production (the outsourcing of Hollywood jobs),^[25][26] illegal immigration, free trade deals, corporate/big business influence in government and the Bush administration's tax cuts. He describes himself as an advocate of economic populism, warning that outsourcing and the U.S. trade and budget deficits threaten the American middle class. Dobbs tends to oppose long-run trade deficits and outsourcing for the sake of labor arbitrage to obtain cheap labor.

In the 2000s, Dobbs has used CNN programs and columns to express his personal views on several subjects. He has become particularly noted for two positions: Dobbs is a critic of American immigration policy and expanded international trade. He is particularly wary of outsourcing and off-shoring, especially with China.^[27] He was a known political figure in New Jersey, with a Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll finding that he had a 70% name recognition among New Jersey voters in January 2010. Among these voters, 22% had a favorable view of Dobbs while 22% had an unfavorable view.^[28]

Illegal immigration and border security[link]

Dobbs has been strongly opposed to both illegal immigration and such labor-outsourcing and foreign worker programs as the H-1B visa program and guest-worker programs.^[29][30] He has been a critic of the Mexican government's poverty programs, and of church leaders in Mexico for not criticizing the Mexican government's policies on border security and illegal immigration.

Lou Dobbs Tonight frequently featured themes of "Exporting America," "Broken Borders," and "War on the Middle Class". The newscast often described illegal immigration as an "invasion." Dobbs dismissed concerns about his rhetoric as "political correctness" in the segment billboarded "P.C. Nation".

In his "Broken Borders" segments, Dobbs focused primarily on the southern border with Mexico and the drugs and the people who cross it. Dobbs has lauded the Canadian government for cooperation in securing the border with their American counterparts.

In an interview with Lesley Stahl, Dobbs spoke about his meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, saying they implied that he was anti-Hispanic by asking him, "if [he had] ever eaten a taco before, for God's sake".^[31] Representative Joe Baca, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, later wrote to CBS insisting that the group did not meet with Dobbs to discuss whether he'd eaten Hispanic food, "but to respectfully recommend that he cease the negative portrayal of Hispanics...and treat the issue of immigration in a responsible manner."^[32]

Some of the reporting on the show has been criticized including a claim that illegal aliens were responsible for bringing 7,000 new cases of leprosy to the United States in a three year period, but the actual timeframe was over the last thirty years, according to James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen’s Disease Program.^[33]

Dobbs has criticized local officials for their approach to border security. In October 2007 he labeled then New York Governor Eliot Spitzer an "idiot" for advocating the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.^[34] Hillary Clinton labeled Dobbs' illegal immigration segments as having "all that hot air."^[35][36]

At about 10:30 a.m. on October 5, 2009, a bullet struck Dobbs's home as Dobbs and his wife stood outside it. ^[37] The bullet struck the vinyl siding of their attic without penetrating the vinyl and fell to the ground.^[38] Dobbs attributed the incident to his stance against amnesty for illegal immigrants.^[39] The New Jersey State Troopers' account of the incident attributed to a stray bullet from a hunter in the vicinity.^[38]

In December 2009, Dobbs stated in an interview with Telemundo that he now supports a plan to legalize undocumented workers.^[40]

Other views[link]

Lou Dobbs is a registered Republican. Though he made a donation of $1,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign in January 2001,^[41] he often has described the Bush administration and the then Republican-controlled Congress as "disgraceful." He has also argued that both parties are controlled by corporate interests. Dobbs faulted Bush's 2004 presidential election opponent, Democrat John Kerry, for first criticizing outsourcing and then backing off.^[42]

Lou Dobbs is pro-choice, opposes gun control and, though he is a fiscal conservative, supports some government regulations, as revealed in a 60 Minutes interview.^[43] He has been critical of trade policies that he says encourage "sending jobs overseas".^[44]

Dobbs' stance on trade has earned plaudits from some trade union activists on the traditional political left, while his stance on immigration tends to appeal to the right.^[8] In an interview with Larry King, Dobbs revealed that he is now "an unaffiliated independent" owing to dissatisfaction with both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Dobbs has been consistently supportive of LGBT rights in the United States. In June 2006, as the U.S. Senate debated the Federal Marriage Amendment, Dobbs was critical of the action. He asserted that marriage was threatened more by financial crises perpetuated by Bush administration economic policy than by same-sex marriage.^[45]

Dobbs is the author of War on the Middle Class, in which he claims that both Democrats and Republicans are harming the middle class. In it, he comes out strongly against the Bush tax cuts, which he argues favor the wealthy, and argued for raising the U.S. minimum wage from what was then $5.15 an hour.^[46]

Dobbs criticized the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 begun by President George W. Bush and later continued by President Barack Obama. He called it originally a "Wall Street bailout", a term which became common. Dobbs described the program as the way for U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to help corporate interests instead of helping average Americans. He expresses many of his views in the documentary Generation Zero.

Controversies[link]

Dobbs' critics, including columnist James K. Glassman, author of Dow 36,000 and member of the American Enterprise Institute think tank, have accused him of inciting xenophobia.^[47] Others have accused him of Hispanophobia, a charge he denies^[48] and one which he has said offends him deeply, as his wife Debi Segura is a Mexican-American.^[49]

Dobbs has also been criticized for his journalistic ethics by liberal news journalist Amy Goodman. She accused him of flagrant errors in his reporting and his staff's association with disreputable sources, complaining that "he has a special responsibility to rely on facts and to correct misstatements of fact."^[50] According to her, he entered the undocumented immigration debate "invoking populist rhetoric and championing the cause of the middle class", a stance opposed by her Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez.^[50]

A CNN report, filed by Christine Romans for Dobbs's April 14, 2005 program, reported on the carrying of diseases across the border by illegal immigrants. Romans' report cited an article in the spring 2005 issue of the non-indexed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, written by Madeleine Cosman, which made the statement that 7,000 cases of leprosy had emerged in the United States within the previous three years (2002–2005), an increase attributed mostly to an influx of immigrants into the country.^[51][52][53] Critics of the program argued that, in fact, the actual number of leprosy cases had reached 7,000 in the registry over 30 years, not the previous three years, with 137 cases reported in 2006.^[54][55] In addressing the leprosy issue, Dobbs in May 2007 compared his critics from the left and right political spectrums to "commies" and "fascists."^[56] On December 4, 2007, Dobbs rejected Cosman's claims as unsubstantiated, calling her "a wackjob".^[57]

On the May 23, 2006 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs's program displayed a map of Aztlán sourced to the controversial Council of Conservative Citizens. CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson apologized for the graphic's use, saying: "A freelance field producer in Los Angeles searched the web for Aztlan maps and grabbed the Council of Conservative Citizens map without knowing the nature of the organization. The graphic was a late inclusion in the script and, regrettably, was missed in the vetting process."^[58] In March 2009, Dobbs thought that there shouldn't be a St. Patricks Day ^[59] In mid-2009, Dobbs was criticized by some in the media for invoking "conspiracy theories" by questioning the constitutionality of Barack Obama's presidency due to his supposedly ambiguous citizenship.^[60] His willingness to raise the "birther" issue repeatedly^[61] even though CNN itself considered it a "discredited rumor",^[62] led the Washington Post's TV critic to remark that this "explains their upcoming documentary: 'The World: Flat. We Report -- You Decide.'"^[63] The issue had come up in 2008 during the Presidential campaign, and had largely disappeared from the media spotlight until Dobbs picked up the issue again.^[64] His statements in support of these investigations were dubbed "racist" and "defamatory" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.^[65][66] The controversy led to Media Matters airing ads critical of Dobbs and of CNN,^[67] and to Jon Stewart mocking Dobbs on the satirical The Daily Show.^[68] The New York Times said that Dobbs had "become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's 'no bias' brand."^[69] As a result, he became a frequent target of MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann's Worst person in the World.^[70]

Shortly afterwards, Dobbs announced that he would broadcast two episodes of Lou Dobbs Tonight from the "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" conference in Washington, D.C., organized by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-illegal immigration advocacy group. Media Matters also criticized this move, citing FAIR founder John Tanton's history of making racist remarks and supporting white supremacist organizations. Media Matters president Eric Burns issued an open letter to CNN vice president Jonathan Klein, asking that the network take action against Dobbs. "Mr. Dobbs represents an ongoing threat to CNN's credibility as a serious news organization, in no small part because of his polemical coverage of immigration issues and his continued use of his CNN show to lend prominence to groups such as FAIR", wrote Burns. "The attention and legitimacy he gave to the 'birther' movement — and CNN's condoning of his actions — did real damage to that credibility. His participation in the upcoming FAIR rally would do further, serious damage. We urge you to finally acknowledge that Mr. Dobbs' actions in this and other contexts are inconsistent with the reputation that CNN strives to maintain."^[71]

In October 2010, The Nation published the results of a yearlong investigation detailing undocumented workers who had worked on Dobbs' personal properties. The labor involved upkeep of Dobbs' multimillion-dollar estates in New Jersey and Florida, including the horses belonging to his daughter, Hillary, a champion show jumper. The article featured interviews with five immigrants who had worked without papers on Dobbs' properties. Dobbs and his daughter had declined to comment to The Nation as part of the story.^[72] Speaking to the Associated Press, Dobbs referred to the article as "a political assault," claiming it's a lie that he hired illegal immigrants. He said: "I have never, do not now, and never will."^[73]

Awards[link]

Dobbs has won numerous major awards for his television journalism, most notably a Lifetime Achievement Emmy Award and a Cable Ace Award. He received the George Foster Peabody Award for his coverage of the 1987 stock market crash. He also has received the Luminary Award of the Business Journalism Review in 1990, the Horatio Alger Association Award for Distinguished Americans in 1999 and the National Space Club Media Award in 2000. The Wall Street Journal has named Dobbs "TV's Premier Business News Anchorman". In 2004, Dobbs was awarded the Eugene Katz Award For Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration by the Center for Immigration Studies and in 2005 he received the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's Statesmanship Award.^[74][75] Dobbs was named "Father of the Year" by the National Father's Day Committee in 1993.^[76]

Books[link]

• Lou Dobbs, Independents Day: Awakening The American Spirit (2007). ISBN 978-0-670-01836-9.
• Lou Dobbs, Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping American Jobs Overseas (2004). ISBN 0-446-57744-8.
• Lou Dobbs, Space: The Next Business Frontier with HP Newquist (2001). ISBN 0-7434-2389-5
• Lou Dobbs, War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back (2006). ISBN 0-670-03792-3.
• Ron Hira and Anil Hira, with foreword by Lou Dobbs, Outsourcing America: What's behind Our National Crisis and how we can reclaim American Jobs. (AMACOM), American Management Association, (May 2005). ISBN 0-8144-0868-0.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Lou Dobbs Tonight website
• Official website
• Lou Dobbs at the Internet Movie Database