There Should Be Stricter Gun Control Laws - Statement Of Abner J. Mikva (d-il) Before The Subcommittee On Crime, House Committee On The Judiciary, February 18, 1975

We must realize the pervasive consequences that violent crime—both the threat and reality—has had on our society. It has changed our lives to a degree most often associated with the revolutionary technological changes of the post-World War II period—television, the growth of the automobile and commercial air travel, and computers. Yes, this society has had a long history of violence, but the magnitude of the present situation is unprecedented and intolerable….

The vast majority of Americans … understand that the problem of violent crime and the use and availability of handguns are directly related. Every public opinion poll on handguns shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor strong controls. And in recent years, police officials throughout the country have been calling repeatedly for strong national handgun control legislation.

Critics of gun control argue that guns do not kill people…. But two facts sharply limit the truth to this argument. First, most killers do not plan in advance to kill their victims. According to the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation]… almost two-thirds of all killings resulted from a family dispute or other arguments between friends or acquaintances and not because of premeditated murder. Most of these killings would have ended as nothing more serious than a shouting match or a fist-fight, except for the presence of a gun. Second, one of every five gun attacks ends in death while only one of every twenty knife attacks ends in death. Thus, if the attacker is intent on murder, he is four times less likely to be successful if he cannot get a gun. It is much more difficult to kill somebody with a garrote by accident, or by mistaken identity.

Many people claim that they need a handgun around the house to protect themselves against intruders. Yet statistics show that a gun kept around the house is six times as likely to kill a family member as it is to kill an intruder. And the National Committee on Violence found that in one year, more homeowners were killed in gun accidents alone than were killed by robbers and burglars in the four preceding years combined. Thus, keeping a handgun in the house is itself a dangerous practice and should be discouraged.

… Another favorite argument of gun control opponents is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court has held on at least four occasions that this right is limited to state militias and does not extend to private citizens. Those who use this argument ignore an even more basic right that has been denied many citizens because of the lack of adequate handgun control laws—the right of citizens not to be gunned down in the streets or in their homes.

As for sportsmen, under my proposal any legitimate gun club will be allowed to obtain and use handguns on the club premises. This may be a slight inconvenience to the relatively few people who like to shoot at targets in their backyards, but when measured against the lives that will be saved, this seems a small concession for sportsmen to make.

Secondly, as to the contention that the states and not the federal government should enact handgun legislation, it seems almost pointless to ban the sale of handguns in Illinois if a person can buy one with no trouble just over the state line in Indiana, Wisconsin, or Missouri. Further, since most handgun killings are crimes of passion, long prison sentences and stiff fines—another proposal of some—would not serve as an effective deterrent, whether such sentences or fines are imposed at the state or federal level.