Gun-owners’ rights more important than accidental deaths of children

Craig Whitmore

I would like to respond to the Editorial Board’s July 9th article supporting the Child Firearm Access Prevention Act (S 1917). The stated purpose of the Act, to “prevent children from injuring themselves and others with firearms,” is one that most people would support. However, before we start writing our senators urging them to back this bill, we need to take a more in-depth look at the situation.

If passed, S1917 will amend Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code to read, in part, “any person that … keeps a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm … and knows, or reasonably should know, that a juvenile is capable of gaining access to the firearm … shall, if a juvenile obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or bodily injury to the juvenile or to any other person … be imprisoned … fined … or both.” The Editorial Board writes that “This bi-partisan bill can ensure that there are no more incidents like Jonesboro” and asks, “How many high schools have to be turned into killing fields before we get our priorities straight enough to enact the simplest laws for our own protection?” Let’s see how effective other, similar laws were when the school shooting incidents in West Paducah, Edinboro and Springfield occurred.

The Gun-Free Schools Act that went into effect in March of 1994 mandated “a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not less than one year a student who is determined to have brought a weapon to a school …” A second Gun-Free Schools Act, enacted in October, 1994, required schools to have “… a policy requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any student who brings a firearm or weapon to a school …”

Additionally, the Youth Handgun Safety Act added the following to 18 USC 1922: “(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile — (A) a handgun; or (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess — (A) a handgun; or (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.” The Department of Justice reported in 1996 that, in the entire nation, only 18 juveniles and 9 adults had been prosecuted for violating this act. Despite these laws, Mike Carneal killed three classmates and wounded five others in West Paducah with a .22-caliber pistol; Andrew Wurst killed one teacher and wounded another, along with two classmates, in Edinboro with a .25-caliber handgun; and Kip Kinkel was found with a .22-caliber handgun and a Glock handgun after killing one classmate and wounding 19 others in Springfield. In the Springfield case, Kinkel had been suspended from school, not expelled as required by the Gun-Free Schools Act, and arrested the day before when he was found with a stolen .32 caliber handgun at school. Although guilty of a federal offense under 18 USC 1922, he was subsequently released to the custody of his parents whom he killed several hours later.

After seeing the deterrent effect the Youth Handgun Safety Act and the Gun-Free Schools Act, not to mention laws regarding murder, assault, terrorism, theft, etc., had in the above school shootings, how can any but the most naive think that the new legislation will do anything but place further restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Nearly everything juveniles do with guns is already illegal.

Let’s try enforcing the laws that we have in place instead of forcing people to choose between obeying another useless, feel-good law and protecting themselves against the criminals who invade 500,000 occupied homes each year.

Finally, the Editorial Board writes about “The National Rifle Association … ignoring the statistics” and asks “How many children need to accidentally shoot themselves or their friends while Dad is out of the house?” Who is ignoring the statistics here? The most recent data available, 1995, show that fatal firearm accidents accounted for 3 percent of all fatal accidents among children.

By comparison, other accidental child deaths involved motor vehicles (44 percent), fires (16 percent), drowning (14 percent), and choking on an ingested object (4.5 percent). The 200 fatal firearm accidents among children in 1995 represent a 64 percent decrease from the all-time high of 550 in 1975. Weigh the lives of 200 children against those of half-a-million families and decide for yourself if this proposed law is really a good idea.


Craig Whitmore

Assistant Scientist

Iowa State University