Gun Owner Responsibility and Accountability

Public health initiatives that work depend upon a duel expectation of individual responsibility and societal accountability.   Firearms are inherently dangerous implements.  Therefore it makes sense to require a high degree of responsibility of gun owners.  Gun violence prevention strategies that address gun owner responsibility and accountability include expecting adults to make informed decisions about firearm purchases, to learn and practice safe use and safe storage of firearms, to keep track of their firearms and report them as stolen when missing, to accept responsibility for the use to which their firearms are put when they have allowed another to use them, and to follow legal procedures when transferring ownership of their firearm(s) to another.

 Current strategies in this area include legislation addressing child access prevention and/or safe storage, and licensing and registration. 

Child Access Prevention Laws and Safe Storage Laws

Research suggests that unsafe storage practices among gun owners are quite common, with gun owners in households with children perhaps slightly more likely to store guns unloaded and locked than those in households without children. A 1999 survey found that 30% of gun owners in households with children under the age of 18, reported that they stored guns either loaded or both loaded and unlocked.¹  The same study found that non-gun owners in a household might be under the false impression that firearms owned by others in their households are stored safely or that the non-gun owner is unaware whether there are guns in the household at all.¹  Encouraging and enforcing safe storage practices is difficult because many gun owners feel that locking a gun up or storing it unloaded – particularly a handgun - may undermine its self-defense utility. While advocates on both sides of the issue argue that safety training might increase safe storage practices, research suggests that this may not be the case.²   Additional barriers to safe gun storage include the false assumption that children will reliably follow directions to stay away from guns, and simple carelessness and forgetfulness.   Therefore, many states have given consideration to child access prevention and/or safe storage laws.

 Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws subject gun owners to criminal and/or civil penalties when children gain access to firearms due to the negligence of the gun owner when the child subsequently injures him or others or uses the firearm in the commission of a crime. Typically, these laws designate exemptions for firearms stored in safes and lock-boxes, or secured with trigger locks.  While CAP laws serve to encourage safe storage practices through the threat of criminal punishment and civil liability should harm result, Safe Storage laws actually require that firearms be stored in a secure manner. Such laws usually require that firearms be stored in a safe or lock-box, or secured with a trigger lock. Currently, 18 states have CAP laws, and 4 states have safe storage laws.³

 Because of the variation between CAP and/or safe storage laws, it is difficult to assess comparative effectiveness.  Some such laws shield the legal owner of the firearm to such an extent that the law itself makes it more difficult to prosecute a negligent owner than it was before the law was enacted.   In general, the standards that must be met to prove that a gun owner violated a CAP law are very high.  In addition to exemptions provided for “safely” stored firearms,⁴ CAP laws vary as to the age of children that they intended to protect (ibid.), and some proposed CAP laws would require evidence that gun owners acted “recklessly” rather than simply negligently.⁵  In many instances the law only applies in cases where an injury or criminal act occurs.⁴  Additionally, prosecutors may be hesitant to bring charges against the offender or offenders, who are frequently bereaved parents or family members of the child victim in cases where the child injures or kills himself. 

Research on how effective CAP laws and safe storage laws have been in preventing deaths and injuries has thus far been inconclusive. A 1997 study of 12 states with CAP or safe storage laws found that after these laws went into effect, unintentional firearm deaths among children under the age of 15 fell 23%.⁶   The research thus far has been inconclusive about whether these laws may have a similar effect on suicides and homicides among the same age group.  While the 1997 study has often been pointed to as evidence of the effectiveness of CAP laws and safe storage laws, a 2000 study that reexamines this question suggests that all CAP laws are not created equal. Researchers Daniel Webster and Marc Starnes found that only Florida’s CAP law - one of only three such laws that allows for felony prosecution of violators - had a significant effect in reducing unintentional firearm deaths among children. The researchers suggest that Florida’s experience might be unique in that as Florida was the first state to pass a CAP law its law allows for the harshest penalties for violators, and Florida had a relatively high rate of unintentional firearms deaths among young people prior to the enactment of the law.⁷

 Gun Buybacks and Exchanges

Part of responsible gun ownership has to be the responsible transfer or disposal of unwanted firearms.  Gun buybacks and exchanges offer gun owners a way to responsibly remove guns from their homes. These programs typically involve gun owners selling or trading unwanted firearms to law enforcement, no questions asked, for a sum of money or vouchers for goods and services. Once collected, law enforcement officials identify stolen guns and those involved in ongoing criminal investigations, and then destroy the remainder.

 Several factors may limit a gun buyback's effectiveness in reducing gun violence on a community level. Research suggests that guns collected in such programs may not resemble the types of guns most frequently used in crime.^8,9  This may be the result of the demographic group at the greatest risk for gun violence, young males, being grossly underrepresented in these programs.^8,10 

 Other concerns are that a significant number of guns exchanged are not in working order, and that criminals may seek to get cash for their broken guns and effectively "trade-up" for a working gun. These problems can be remedied by using vouchers instead of cash in trade for the guns, or by paying a lower price for guns that are not in working order. Others have raised concerns over the operating costs of such buybacks, arguing that more cost-effective means to reducing gun violence should be pursued. Proponents of gun buybacks respond that the programs have public relations utility in that they raise awareness of the risks of guns in the home, encouraging people to make informed decisions about gun ownership, and emphasizing safe storage practices. Additionally, gun buybacks may reduce the risk of gun injury for participants and members of their households.

 Under the Clinton Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) instituted the Buyback America Program, for which it partnered with over 80 communities nationwide, providing matching funds for buyback programs. Over the first few months of the program, over 20,000 firearms were collected.¹¹  In Michigan, public housing authorities in Detroit, River Rouge, Saginaw, Inkster, and Flint became part of this program. Recently, the Bush Administration decided to cut funding for the program, leaving its future uncertain.

 Licensing and Registration

Although some states have licensing and registration laws on the books, there is currently no comprehensive system of licensing and registration on the national level. The purposes of licensing and registration are relatively straightforward, but it is important to understand the difference between licensing and registration, and to note how these two measures must coexist for maximum effect.

 Similar to the licensing of drivers, licensing of gun owners seeks to ensure that only qualified individuals possess guns. This can be accomplished, much as it is for licensing of drivers, by establishing safety standards for ownership and use and enforcing those standards through mandatory instruction and periodic testing. Furthermore, licensing would provide for universal background checks, unlike the current system of background checks, which are generally only applicable in transactions involving federally licensed gun dealers, thus working to prevent guns from passing into the hands of prohibited persons such as felons and juveniles.

 Additionally, licensing would place the responsibility of performing background checks with law enforcement or other regulatory agencies, rather than letting it rest solely with federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs), as is generally the case now.  Although the majority of FFLs operate within the law, corrupt FFLs have been identified as a major source of guns that are diverted into illegal markets.¹²

 Registration is intended to create a record of ownership for firearms just as registration of automobiles creates a record of ownership.  Registration enables law enforcement to more effectively track weapons that are used in criminal activity or are sold or transferred illegally, thereby bringing accountability to gun ownership.  Currently, records of purchase are only kept for purchases made from FFLs. "Straw" purchases, where guns are bought legally by eligible purchasers from FFLs to be intentionally passed on to prohibited individuals, sales between private parties, and gun show sales, all of which have proven to be major channels through which criminals acquire guns,¹² are virtually unregulated. Once its first owner sells a gun, it is virtually impossible to determine subsequent ownership.

 Licensing and registration would address the problems of unregulated sales, thus restricting the market for illegal guns. While licensing would provide a much needed background check for private sales, registration holds individuals accountable for the illegal transfer of their weapons.   Licensing and registration, like any measure that decreases ease of access to firearms, might decrease incidents in which the decision to acquire a firearm is made impulsively. The time taken to obtain a license and register a firearm acts as a built-in waiting period, and thus an often needed "cooling off" period.

 Only a limited number of states have licensing and registration systems in place.  In places where licensing and registration systems have been implemented, they have been effective.  A 1991 study that examined the effect of a restrictive licensing law in Washington, D.C., found a prompt decline in firearm homicides and suicides in D.C. after the law took effect.¹³  A 2001 study found that states with licensing and registration systems in place do a better job of keeping guns initially sold within the state from falling into criminal hands than do states without such systems in place.¹⁴  This study found that a far lower percentage of crime guns in states that have licensing and registration systems in place are actually first sold in the state in which they are seized than is the case in states with neither licensing nor registration, or one but not the other.  In simpler terms, states with licensing and registration make it harder for criminals to obtain guns in their home states, thereby working to make guns less available for criminal use.     

Most other industrialized countries have had systems of licensing and registration in place for over 50 years. When we compare the rates of gun deaths for countries that have systems of licensing and registration in place with those of the United States, the numbers speak for themselves. In a study of 15 countries that have stricter licensing and registration laws, the gun homicide rate of the United States was over 3 times that of the countries with the next highest rate.¹⁵  (See table: “International Firearms Regulations, Access and Deaths”)  While opponents of these policies are quick to point out that method substitution compensates for this disparity, whereby other weapons are substituted when firearms are not as readily available, research suggests that this is not the case.^13,16 

SOURCES

For the sources to this table please see the end of this section. 

The gun lobby opposes the idea of licensing and registration in principle, arguing that these measures are the first step toward the confiscation of all guns.  Some gun violence prevention advocates feel that licensing and registration addresses only the problem of criminal gun use, and abandons the public health approach to gun violence by focusing on the user rather than the weapon. There are additional concerns over safety training, because research suggests that safety training does not necessarily translate into more responsible behavior by gun owners.²

 In Michigan, the law requires that an individual wishing to purchase a handgun obtain what is known as a “license to purchase.”¹⁷  Such licenses may be obtained from local law enforcement, and require that applicants pass a background check and a basic safety questionnaire. Once a license is obtained, an individual has 10 days to acquire a pistol. As the licenses are only valid for use in obtaining pistols for 10 days, they are not subject to renewal. The license must be presented at the time of sale, and the seller must fill out the license forms describing the pistol and providing information about the buyer. Sellers may retain a copy of this license as a record of sale, but they are not obligated to forward these records to law enforcement. Only licensed dealers are required to maintain records of firearms that they sell and to whom they are sold. These records are subject to inspection, but the law does not require that they be submitted to the state regularly. Once a pistol is purchased or otherwise obtained, the licensee is required to return 2 copies of the license to the licensing authority within 10 days. Aside from the license requirement, an individual who obtains a pistol is required to present the pistol to the police for safety inspection. The safety inspection acts as a kind of de facto registration, by which a record of ownership is created at the time of inspection and filed with both local law enforcement and the state police.   However, law enforcement in Michigan does not necessarily make an attempt to follow-up when a license has been issued but the prospective purchaser fails to return for a safety inspection.

Although Michigan's system of permitting and inspection is one of the most comprehensive systems in United States, it can be improved. Under our system, little can be done to ensure that pistols acquired in private transactions be registered, leaving the door open for "straw" purchasing. While licensed dealers are subject to state and federal oversight, and are required to maintain records of sales and information on purchasers, private sellers currently have neither the obligation to maintain records nor an obligation to inform law enforcement of a sale or transfer. Although all transfers are required to be recorded on the license itself, it is the sole responsibility of the purchaser to return the license to law enforcement. This problem could be remedied either by adding another form to the license that must be returned to the police by the seller when a sale or transfer is made, or by simply mandating that a seller notify law enforcement of all transfers. Despite these limitations, Michigan's permiting and inspection system is a good start. However, guns know no boundaries, and Michigan's efforts on this front will continue to be undermined as long as no comprehensive national system is in place.

___________________________________________________

Citations: Gun Owner Responsibility and Accountability

1)       Azrael D et al., Are household firearms stored safely? It depends on whom you ask, Pediatrics, 2000; 106 (3) September

2)       Hemenway D et al., Firearm training and storage, JAMA, 1995; 273:46-50

3)       Americans For Gun Safety, Gun Glossary, Retrieved from: http://w3.agsfoundation.com/glossary.html#childaccess

4)       Firearms Law Center, Child Access Prevention, Retrieved from: http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/mlcapprint.asp

5)       Michigan Legislature, House Bills 5745, 5746, 5747, 1999-2000 Session

6)       Cummings P et al., State gun safe storage laws and child mortality due to firearms, JAMA, 1997; 278 (13):1084-1086

7)       Webster DW, Starnes M, Reexamining the association between child access prevention gun laws and unintentional shooting deaths of children, Pediatrics, 2000; 106(6):1466-1469

8)       Romero MP et al., Characteristics of a gun exchange program, and an assessment of potential benefits, Injury Prevention,1998; 4(3):206-210

9)       Kuhn EM, et al. A comparison of buyback and fatality-related guns in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Firearm Injury Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, and Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA

10)    Callahan CM et al., Money for guns:  evaluation of the Seattle buy-back program, Public Health Reports, 1994; 109(4): 472-477

11)    Letter from HUD Assistant Secretary Harold Lucas, Retrieved from: http://www.hud.gov/pih/programs/buybackamerica.html

12)    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, Department of the Treasury, Following the Gun:  Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers, June 2000

13)    Loftin C et al., Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia, N Engl J Med, 1991; 325(23):1615-1620

14)    Webster DW et al., Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns, Injury Prevention, 2001; 7:184-189

15)    Table compiled by SAFER-Net, The Small Arms/Firearms Education and Research Network

16)    Killias M,  International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide,  Can Med Assoc J, 1993; 148(10): 1721-1725

17)    MCL 28.422

Sources: International Firearms Regulations, Access and Deaths Table

 (1)     1995 firearm homicide and suicide data from the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission, “International Study of Firearms Regulations:” www.uncjin.org

(2)     Philip Alpers (2001), “Firearm-related Injury, Crime & Regulation: Health, Justice & Compliance Data from Selected Nations.” International Medical Conference on Small Arms, Helsinki, Finland: September 28-30.

(3)     1999 estimated population and mortality figures from the Office for National Statistics, “Mortality: Cause, 1999 DH2 – (No 26).”

(4)     1999 estimated population and mortality figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, “Annual Report of the Registrar General 1999:” www.nisra.gov/uk/featup/rgann99.htm

(5)     United Nations Firearms Study, August 1999

(6)     UN Firearms Regulation Study database section 2, 3 and 4, regulation and possession, 1999.

(7)     1998 firearm mortality data from Jenny Mouzos (July 2000), “Firearm Related Deaths in Australia 1998.” Trends & Issues in Crime Control & Criminal Justice, No. 161, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra: www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi161.html

(8)     1998 firearm mortality data from the New Zealand Health Information Service, “Mortality 1998.”

(9)     1994 firearm mortality data from INSERM: www.inserm.fr

(10)  Department of Justice, Firearms Statistics, Research and Statistics Section, 1999; Crime Statistics in Canada 2000, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-002-XIE, Vol. 21, No. 8.

(11)  1997 firearm homicide data is from “Canadian Injury Data: Mortality – 1997 and Hospitalizations – 1996-97.” Child Injury Division, Health Canada, October 1999.

(12)  1997 firearm suicide data is from Orest Fedorwyyez (1999), Homicide in Canada – 1999. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada. Catalogue No. 85-002-XIE, Vol. 20, No. 9.

(13)  Sophie Nolet (2000/2001), “La détention d’armes par les civils.” Les Rapports du GRIP.

(14)  1999 firearm homicide data is from Martin Killias (September 2001), unpublished tables. School of Forensic Science and Criminology, University of Lausanne.

(15)  1998 firearm suicide data is from Erwin K. Wuest (August 2001), Suizid in der Schweiz im Jahr 1998, unterteilt nach Art der Selbstottung. Swiss Federal Bureau of Statistics.

(16)  1998 firearm mortality data provided by Dr. Lars-Gunnar Hörte.

(17)  Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (1996), “Guns in America.” Police Foundation.

(18)  1998 firearm mortality data is from Centers for Disease Control, “WISQARS 1998 Injury Mortality Data Reports:” www.cdc.gov

Details regarding legislation are from various sources, including: the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission, “International Study of Firearms Regulations:” www.uncjin.org ; Joachim J. Savelsberg (1995), “International perspectives on gun control,” Journal of International Comparative Law, Vol. 15, No. 2&3: 259-263 ; Wendy Cukier (1995), “Bill C-68: Brief to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.” ; The Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP) Network and Small Arms/Firearms Education and Research Network (SAFER-Net), Nation Status Reports on Violence and Firearms, 2001.