the United States, many are well made, expensive and difficult to conceal.

For example, I am a competitive pistol shooter myself and I have got two guns, probably the most expensive guns. One is a Hammerli free pistol used in international competition. It would be classed a Saturday night special since it does not have a "positive manually operated safety device." Of course not, there is no need for one, it is a single shot.

Another gun I use in competition, the Walther rapid fire pistol, used for international rapid fire competition, would be considered or might be considered a Saturday night special, even though it is a large gun, about-over 12 inches in length, but its barrel is only 21/2 inches in length and it shoots shorts. For some reason, shooting shorts is a no, no. But this is designed specifically for this gun to avoid recoil.

There is no conceivable set of standards which could be proposed that could not be circumvented by the manufacturer and I would say before the legislative ink was dry.

Let's suppose that standards could be formulated, and this is a supposition that I don't hold with, and a Saturday night special bill passed. How long would it take and what is to prevent the criminal from cutting off the barrel of an acceptable gun and make it more readily concealable? Does it really make any difference to the victim of a crime whether the gun that is used is a Saturday night special or a more expensive gun? What will happen to the untold thousands of these guns now in the hands of criminals? Who will really be affected by the passage of the Saturday night special bill, the criminal, who can, and will pay whatever is demanded on the black market for any gun available, or the honest individual who may wish to possess a relatively inexpensive for the defense of his home and family?

Finally, how long will it be-and this is most important-how long will it be before a more restrictive, broader, more inclusive Saturday night special bill is proposed as another step toward the total elimination of gun ownership by the honest American citizen?

We are all concerned about the crimes of passion myth. This was brought up several times during the day and I would like to take another minute if I may. One of the reasons given for the curtailment of handgun possession is the frequency of shooting between members of the family and between friends. The Senate Juvenile Delinquency Sub-Committee constructed a profile of the typical gun killer. He had been piling up a criminal record for 10 years prior to his most recent charge of murder, on an average he had been arrested two to four times for serious crimes, 62 percent of gun murderers had previously been arrested for crimes of violence; 81 percent chose their wives or friends or relatives to kill and in 88 percent of the cases killed them during a lovers' quarrel or a drunken brawl. The prototype that emerges from this evidence is a low class, squabbling, drunken ne'er-do-well, in most instances with a criminal record. This is the type of individual who commits crimes of passion, and this is the type household where such crimes occur. Yet our antigun advocates would have one believe that the crimes of passion

and violence between friends occurs in the average American household. This is not true.

America is becoming an armed camp and the millions of handgun purchases each year represents millions of votes of no confidence by the American people in the criminal justice system. We, all of the law abiding citizens of this country are concerned, frustrated, and angry at the hundreds of bills being introduced calling for gun registration, licensing to possess, banning the Saturday night special, imposing prohibitive fees and taxes, establishing prolonged waiting periods before purchasing a gun, are all legislative proposals that would affect and be obeyed by only the honest, law abiding citizen. As our legislators, our representatives, the group most intimately involved with this complex and difficult problem, we ask, we plead, we insist, that future legislation be directed toward controlling the criminal by the imposition of severe additional penalties for the use of a dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime, that assistance be provided in funds and manpower for more effective enforcement of our present laws, assurance of speedy trials, elimination of plea bargaining in crimes of violence, and reduction of unwarranted parole and probation.

We feel strongly that this approach to crime control together with a sincere and determined effort to eliminate the causative social and economic conditions as listed by the FBI and were touched upon at this meeting, is the only logical and effective solution.

The proliferation of gun ownership is the result of, not the cause of crime increase.

We cherish our individual perogatives-I am on my last sentence, Mr. Chairman-we cherish our individual perogatives, our constitutional rights, and refuse to sacrifice them on the altar of futility. To give up our guns, and our constitutional rights pertaining thereto in a senseless, misguided attempt to stop crime, is the epitomy of futility.

Thank you once again for this opportunity. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. CONYERS. You are not only a member of the medical profession but you are an excellent advocate as well.

Mr. Caldwell.

TESTIMONY OF CLAUDE R. CALDWELL, GEORGIA STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION

Mr. CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have not prepared the erudite presentation the gentleman on my left has given to you, but for some time I have been concerned with the matter of safety in firearms. I gave you a resume but I didn't mention there that in 1934 I first became attached to the Armed Forces as a Reserve second lieutenant. In 1941, I went on active duty. In those days it was the business of the individual unit to conduct the training for the members, not as you have now with these training camps. It was my responsibility to train the men in my group and incidentally all from New York City, the Bronx, up the Hudson River

Mr. CONYERS. That was a good experience for them.

Mr. CALDWELL. We had 250 yankees with a southerner, that was the situation; but we trained those people so that every man was qualified as at least a marksman, with a rifle, with a carbine, with a machine gun, with a submachine gun, and with a .50 caliber machine gun; and from that day, while we were training and until the present, I have heard of no firearm accident among the members of that group. It is still a cohesive group and they meet every year.

The rationale of increasing appropriations I think is beyond all reason. We taxpayers can't stand it anymore, and I suggest an alternative to that that is enunciated somewhat by Mr. Davis from Los Angeles, in the past, since I have received your kind invitation to be here, I looked at the newspapers and I found a few articles. This Mr. Davis, chief of police out there says:

At no time in history anywhere has there ever been a police department that has been able to combat crime before it occurred.

That is what the advocates of gun control say, let's combat the crime before it occurs. The cost of it would be prohibitive, and so every person, every family, every home should do an optimum amount of self-protection and we have a right under the second amendment to keep and bear arms. You have a right to possess in your home and in your business a rifle or pistol and King George can't take it away.

Mr. CONYERS. Preventive medicine is an accepted practice, looking to your colleague to your left. Isn't there some way that programs without being exhorbitant could be preventive. Especially if they were educational in nature, which is precisely how you trained your own men in the service and why they don't have accidents. They know how to handle their weapons.

Mr. CALDWELL. Some years ago in Orlando, the first program that I heard of, and possibly you may have the details on it, they conducted a program to teach the women in the community safety of firearms and how to use them. There was an immediate drop to zero of assaults and rapes and burglaries. How long that continued, I don't know.

Mr. CONYERS. Do you have any indications of how many accidents were prevented?

Mr. CALDWELL. I do not. I don't have any statistics. I don't have any percentages. I have these things that have come to my attention. Even Mr. Harris who writes a column in our paper talking about gun control and he says that you can't do it. In point of fact, autos kill about 212 times as many citizens a year as murderers are responsible for, and we are conducting educational programs on the use of automobiles, we hope that that will tend to reduce the accident rate.

I submit to you and for your consideration and hopefully an adoption of some such program, to emphasize, to augment, to encourage the training of individual citizens in the use of firearms, and at least, oh I would say two, three, or four times a month.

My personal friend asked me would you take my wife out and teach her to shoot a pistol, and I said "well, you trust her, do you" and he says "yes, I do but I want her to protect the house while I

am gone". Now that is within my very limited experience, that is the sphere of my activity, these people come to me for assistance. I think a public offering, a public emphasis on firearms training and education would produce the results that you seek, to reduce accidents and to deter criminals.

I will give you an example. I live in a compact neighborhood. The man to the rear of me, his house was burgled when he was away. The man across the street, his house was burgled. The man around the corner, his house was burgled, and I have two things going for me. One is an ever present pistol and the reputation that I earned some years back the distinguished pistol award, and second a St. Bernard dog-now which one is the most effective I don't know, but the combination of the two have kept wrongdoers away, and I tend to think that the knowledge that people have generally that I have available a firearm and I am capable of using it, not as my brother does here on the international rapid fire, because you know that is five shots in 4 seconds you can think about it.

Mr. CONYERS. Well that is where I made my mistake. I kept a gun and they didn't care, they must have known I was a lousy shot, they came in anyway.

You, you have a reputation.

Mr. CALDWELL. Well, I would suggest education.

Mr. CONYERS. And training.

Thank you very much. Mr. Cummings, we welcome your presence here and any remarks you want to add.

TESTIMONY OF JASPER RICHARD CUMMINGS, KENTUCKY STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Since you have already made my written statement a part of the record, I have had to sit here and reorganize what I had to say, and thank you for inviting me here today, it is a great pleasure to contribute to the democratic process.

One point I would like to make is that we have heard a great deal about the polls and what the people want here today, and I would submit that there is a difference of opinion on what people want. I think it was in November of 1971 that the Advocates, a program on educational television, ran a debate on gun control and which the listeners sent in post cards as to whether or not they are for it or against it. The response if I recall correctly was some 25,000 against further gun control, as opposed to some 5,000 for more gun control. At about the same time Life magazine ran a mail-in poll and I think it was in February of 1972 that they published the results. They asked the readers do you favor among other things more gun control. Of 43,000 persons who responded to that poll, Life magazine stated that there was no sympathy for more gun control.

Now I freely admit that the readership of Life magazine did not constitute a valid cross section of the American public, but I think there is a strong indication that there is some basis for doubt from the polls that we have seen.

Furthermore, we have 10,000 members of the NRA in the state of Kentucky, shooters. We have 3,000 people on our State Rifle and

Pistol Association mailing list. For the last 5 years our association in conjunction with an extremely active club in the Louisville area where our State fair is annually held, we have been running a booth at the Kentucky State Fair and circulating a petition which calls for our legislators to refrain from enacting further gun control legislation.

Every year for the last 5 years, we have collected between 7,000 and 9,000 signatures in a 10-day fair, and those petitions are still in our possession.

What we, the shooters, are wondering is where have gun controls worked. Sources which I consider reliable within the shooting sports, have informed me that fewer than 1,000 people like myself, private citizens, hold pistol permits under New York City's famous or to us, infamous, Sullivan law, and yet we see little reduction in crime. rate. I have heard here today a horrendous figure of the number of unregistered guns in New York City. We have heard here today of the southern connection, handguns being transferred in interstate commerce in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is already against the law to do those things and yet people are doing it. How will one more law work!

In addition to our fear that gun control will not reduce crime,. we also fear that the end result of registrations and licensing submitted to in trust and good faith will be uncompensated confiscation, such has been recently proposed in Washington, D.C. by a member of the City Council, I believe.

We believe that stricter penalties for the use of firearms in crimeis one way to inhibit the use of firearms in crime. If punishment does not deter, what are we doing supporting prisons?

Mr. CONYERS. That is a rhetorical question of course.

Mr. CUMMINGS. We feel that it is time to take a good look at the reality of gun control and while much of it may come from sincere well-meaning persons, a lot of it may be publicity seeking. It stirs up a great deal of publicity and gets a great deal of public attention.

Most of us in the shooting sports feel that the roots of crime are far deeper than mere possession of the implements with which to commit it, because man is the creature who makes the tools with which to carry out his wishes.

I am no gunsmith. I have mediocre mechanical ability. In the absence of a weapon, I believe sincerely that I could go in a hardware store with $15 in my pocket and come out with enough bits and pieces of pipe and assorted things, which I would rather not discuss in public, and make myself a thing which would not be suitable for hunting quail, but with which I could kill a human being if I had to.

Since the President's Commission on the causes of crime and violence in American life came out in 1969, I believe it was, with an. estimate that there were 90 million handguns in the United States at that time, 17,000 people a year were being hurt, and of course, the mind bobbles at such figures as these. All any school boy has to do is take three digits, three zeros off the end of 17,000 and three zeros off the end of the 90 million and he gets 17 guns out of every 90,000 that hurt people, annually. This is in a proportion of