Hon. JOHN CONYERS JR., APPENDIXES APPENDIX 1 CORRESPONDENCE ABBEY OF GETHSEMANI, Trappist, Ky., March 24, 1975. U. S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CONYERS: I wish to express my gratitude towards you in your efforts to find some effective control on the sale and use of hand-guns in this country. Let me state here that I am a proud owner of a hunting rifle and would see no problem if I were asked to register and obtain a license for this rifle. In fact I would certainly question the motive of a person who would refuse. In a similar way, I enjoy the privilege of driving an automobile and find no problem in getting a registration and license for the same. This is a bit off the subject but I can't resist saying that drinking and driving don't mix and violators of which a huge percentage are responsible for highway deaths every year-should lose their license or privilege. With every privilege goes responsibility. Without control on hand-guns there seems to be developing very rapidly a mentality that one has to be able to defend onself and so one very easily justifies the need for a revolver. Right-away from the above statement if correct, then our police-force will need some rehabilitation, from its public image to its effectiveness in quelling violence in all forms. Perhaps this should be the first step but passing a law and enforcing it on the sale and use of hand guns is I believe a very good start. Your Honor, please excuse my long-windedness but its the best I could do in expressing my desire and appreciation on paper to back up your efforts. I'm convinced good government will only come from good people doing all in their power to overcome what is basically wrong, evil and a source of unlimited control. Thank you for listening. Brother M. CORMAC. ST. PETERSBURG, FLA., July 7, 1975. Hon. JOHN CONYERS, House of Representatives, DEAR CONGRESSMAN CONYERS: In November of 1974, our family was confronted with an ordeal which I feel you can be very instrumental in sparing many other families, including your own, your friends and associates from having to go through. Our family's ordeal began in our own neighborhood, out of the barrel of a .357 Magnum Handgun. Our only son Byron, a fine student, athlete and a credit to his school, church and community, was visiting his best friend, two doors from our home. His friends father had left and left his son the responsibility of cleaning hunting rifles and the .357 Magnum Handgun, used the day before hunting. We are not sure just what took place, but our son had only been in their home a few moments when somehow his friend discharged the gun, hitting Byron in the chest, killing him instantly, he will be forever 14 years old. The aftermath of this tragedy has been a nightmare for our family, and one which I pray to God no other family will ever have to live through, it is some- . thing that confronts one every day, having to bury your child. (2139) This event is mirrored many times over daily in our country, as born out by our newspapers, the grim details of death wrought by the Handgun. I feel that our society can no longer tolerate the menace that the Handgun presents to every citizen, it is time to take decisive action when, statistically speaking your children and mine stands a greater chance of being killed by a Handgun, than did a soldier on combat duty during the second world war. I urge you and your associates, as responsible fathers, Americans and the peoples voice in Government, to take decisive action on this issue of Handgun Control, before the Handgun claims another victim. Sincerely, WALTER M. SCHRAM. FEDERAL PENITENTIARY, DEAR CHAIRMAN CONYERS: I am very appreciative of your kindness in allowing me to submit a statement regarding my views on Gun Control Legislation which is before your Subcommittee. I would like the record to clearly show that I am categorically opposed to any type of gun control legislation whether it be on a City, County, State or Federal level. As has been stated numerous times in the past, "people murder people not guns." The crime problem can be "arrested" over night if all Americans are guaranteed decent employment, decent housing, decent medical treatment and a decent education. This nation is being plagued by narcotic addiction, armed robberies, assults and an archaic criminal justice system, and it will continue to increase until all of us take affirmative action to see that people are not compelled to live in sub-human conditions, i.e., housing employment, education, and medical. Sincerely yours, PAUL B. OWENS. Representative JOHN CONYERS, MOUNT STERLING, KY., March 5, 9175. Chairman, House Judiciary Panel on Gun Control, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CONYERS: I am writing to the panel, chaired by you, which is looking into the gun control issue. I wish to express my opposition to any attempts to take away or make unavailable firearms to the public. Before continuing with the aforementioned intent of this letter allow me to introduce myself. I am twenty-seven years of age, a teacher of junior high school science and part-time farmer. I am by nature peaceable yet hold a deep conviction of the right of an individual to protect his family and home. Allow me now to mention only a few of the scores of reasons for opposing restrictive gun controls. First is the Constitution of the United States, Amendment II. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." When this was written its intent was to prevent a recurrence of the acts whereby the British had entered private homes and confiscated firearms and ammunition. The militia of that time consisted of untrained "minutemen"; just ordinary private citizens. The amendment states clearly “. . . the right of the people ..."; we, the ordinary private citizens, are the people of this land; therefore any attempt to prevent firearms ownership by the aforementioned persons is a violation of the Constitution. Secondly no amount of laws will prevent criminals from possessing guns with which to perpetrate their illegal acts. After all by the very definition of a criminal he is opposed to abiding by the laws of the land. Restrictive firearms laws only work a hardship on law abiding citizens; not only making the obtaining of a firearm for the usual sporting purposes difficult but also greatly limiting our ability to defend our homes and families. Please note that the laws preventing ordinary citizens from owning fully automatic weapons and explosive devices has not deterred or prevented criminals from obtaining such items. A third reason to oppose restrictive firearms legislation is the safety factor. If we can believe the figures quoted by Representative Mikva the 13040 gun related deaths in 1973 is certainly small compared to the number killed by automobiles, falls in the home, and alcohol. According to the figures presented by Representative Mikva only .0326% of all guns contribute to the death of a human being and only .2826% of all guns contribute to a human injury. It should be noted that due to these truly remarkable safety records that insurance companies provide liability insurance for gun collections at one of the lowest rates for any type of liability insurance. For an item that numbers well over 40 million pieces this is quite an impressive safety record. I wonder too, how many of those deaths and injuries with guns were caused directly by alcohol and/or drugs? As to the allegation that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a member of the family than an intruder I live in a community of more than 15000 and can only think of three deaths in a household due to a gun accident in the past five years. I do not count suicides in the above since a person bent on suicide will find a way no matter what the obstacles. If guns were as dangerous as Mr. Mikva and Mr. Fauntroy claim I seriously doubt that the insurance companies would be willing to provide liability insurance so cheaply: it sure does not come cheap for automobiles. The only thing that will combat crime is for our courts and judges to convict and properly sentence those who commit unlawful acts. When of two murderers in my own community one receives a suspended one year sentence and the other, who by his own admission was not only guilty of murdering three adults and one unborn baby but has a list of others to kill, receives a sentence that will allow him to be returned to society in four and one-half years I must say that it is no wonder the United States has such a high rate of crime. Correcting this lenient attitude toward criminals is the only thing that will curb crime; not taking guns away from millions of decent, law-abiding citizens: If guns are removed from the people this country will be host to a rise in crime the likes of which has never before been imagined in this nation. After all, a criminal will find his job much easier and safer if the only legal guns are those in the hands of law officers miles or blocks from his intended victim. In closing I leave this thought; prosecute the human criminal; not an inanimate object such as the gun or automobile a criminal may use in the commission of a crime. Thank you for considering my letter. W. TANDY CHENAULT. SOUTH MIAMI, FLA., March 27, 1975. Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Chairman, Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, House Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN CONYERS: I am writing this letter to urge you not to pass any more gun control legislation. What we already have is sufficient for the law abiding citizens. And for the rest; well, they are going to get guns no matter how many laws you pass. Shooting and hunting are healthy sports and if more people, especially children, were involved in something like this, it might keep them out of so much trouble. Instead of trying to keep anyone from owning a gun or from buying ammunition, why not concentrate your efforts on the criminal use of guns. If the courts would be harder on the people who use guns in crimes, the criminals would think twice about using them. Ask any Police Department, and I'll bet they tell you they would rather have harder court sentences than stronger gun control laws. Don't make a lot of innocent people suffer for what a few do. Make those few pay with years, instead of months, in jail and I'll bet you get better results than you had hoped for. Very truly yours, LOIS C. GILBERT. CAPE CORAL, FLA., April 12, 1975. Hon. JOHN CONYERS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CONYERS: Even though this letter shows that my present home is Florida, I was born and reared, from two generations of Georgians, in Atlanta, Georgia. As I travel across the country, I read newspaper editorials and news 52-557-76-17-pt. 6 items about gun control and, in the same paper, news which proves to me that the things I heard and saw in Atlantia, Georgia twenty to fifty years ago, were true all over the nation. If 10,340 people were murdered by hand guns in 1973, I wonder if anyone has stopped to analyze and see who the murderers and the murdered were, and how this compares with the number of these same kind of people that were murdering and being murdered, thirty, forty, fifty or sixty years ago, when ice picks, switchblade knives and straight razors were the weapons of the day. "Assault with a deadly weapon" has not always resulted in murder, but regardless of the weapon used, and only in recent years as compared with the nation's 200 years of existence, have "hand guns" become the weapon that is universally and very effectively used. Murder is what was intended. What I am saying is, when I was a boy, 45 and 50 years ago, ice picks were commonplace, and there were very few, if any, refrigerators, and our local "brethren" frequently used ice picks on each other. We had one man come to work one morning with over 27 ice pick wounds in his back. Now, I am sure that whoever inflicted these intended to murder him, but they were not quite so successful. This is just one of tens of thousands of examples. Now, as for statistics, I have heard it said from law enforcement officers of the day that, in and around Atlanta forty and fifty years ago, no statistics of these types of assaults were ever kept, in fact, they didn't even record the dead bodies that were picked up, particularly after a Saturday night brawl-let alone, the way they became dead or why. So, what I am suggesting is that 10,340 murdered with hand guns in 1973 is probably a low number compared with the total deaths caused by any and all weapons prior to the time the murderers could afford to buy "hand guns". I rather believe that this figure is low, taken on a population density basis, anyway you ought to develop it. From information that I hear and read, it would lead me to believe that if you took the "minority" out of the crime picture, particularly crimes that the "minority" commits against the "minority", and just limit it to the crimes of "passion" of a serious nature, to include "assault with a deadly weapon" and/or "murder", we would have very little crime left. What serious crime is left appears, to me, to be the "minority" using deadly weapons, some hand guns, to commit robberies and/or armed holdups, not only against each other, but against the balance of the population. With these taken out of the total crime picture, what serious crimes that involved deadly weapons, "hand guns", can usually be traced to isolated cases of murder and robbery, but the majority would be in the area of family and domestic quarrels, most of these by "minorities" and/or foreigner. Like most people that do not favor "gun control", I am in favor of the complete elimination of the manufacture, distribution, sale and possession of the so-called "Saturday night special", particularly the importing of such a weapon from foreign sources. If times get hard enough, you will see the swing from murder by "hand guns" to other inexpensive and ineffective weapons. I doubt if we will go back to ice picks, but sharp and blunt instruments will continue. The very best proof I have to prove my point, is to step into any United States Post Office and look at the wanted posters and study them. Over 95% of them will be the exact types of individuals I have just been discussing. Very truly yours, GEORGE W. WEST, Jr. DAVIS HOSPITAL, Statesville, N.C., April 18, 1975. Representative JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the judiciary "Sub-Committee on Crime" is presently holding hearings on Gun Control. Hearings range from registration, licensing, banning of the sale of all guns, banning Saturday night specials, and also the Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Penalties for the Use of Fire Arms in the Commission of a Crime. I support the latter proposal-Mandatory Minimum Penalties, and so does every law abiding citizen, every sportsman, every N.R.A. member, every Legis |