out gun control which in effect contribute to the confusion apparent on both sides of the issues. By looking at each of these assumptions and examining the pro and con side of the argument, one gleans a clearer picture of the controversy surrounding the issue. The first assumption is that guns are deadlier than other weapons which might be substituted if guns were unavailable. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and others believe that crimes will be committed at the same rate even if the government curtails gun purchases. Advocates of gun control point out that if alternate weapons are used, fatal injuries would be less likely (Kleck, 1984, p. 24).
A second assumption says that the ownership of firearms increases the rate of violent crime. For instance, at a hearing of the California assembly in Sacramento in 1989, California Attorney general John Van de Kamp rose from his seat and said:
Ladies and Gentlemen, take a look at your watches and start counting. You are lucky that I am an attorney and not some nut. Because if I had the ammunition, I could shoot every member of the assembly by the time I finish this sentence - about 20 seconds (Barrett, 1989, p. 22).
...