Arms control debate

Simonds, Merilyn. Code of Arms. Canadian Geographic, vol. 116, March-April 1996, pp. 44ff. Describes the gun scene in Canada, which has a reasonable number of guns but does not have the emotional attachment to them that many people in the United States have. Simonds reviews the different historical experiences that people in Canada and the United States have had with firearms. She also discusses events that have heated up the gun control debate in Canada. A related article gives a brief chronology of gun control in Canada. 

Fainberg A. 1997. Debating policy priorities and implications. In Roberts B (Ed). Terrorism With Chemical and Biological Weapons. Alexandria, VA The Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute. Pp. 75-93. 

Rosenberg, Merri, Sarah Brady, and Tanya Metaksa. Up in Arms. Scholastic Update, vol. 131, November 2, 1998, pp. lOff. Presents a panel discussion/debate between Flandgun Control, Inc. s Sarah Brady and the NRA s Tanya Metaksa. Brady argues for a variety of measures to restrict access to guns and make them safer. Metaksa says that gun owners should be held responsible for their actions, not deprived of their rights. 

WitUn, Gordon. Should You Own a Gun U.S. News World Report, vol. 117, August 15, 1994, pp. 24ff. Uses the question of gun ownership to introduce the overall debate about gun control. The article features a debate between Gary Kleck, whose research shows that gun owners use their guns for defense up to 2.5 million times a year (seldom shooting them) and that criminals are deterred by their fear of armed citizens, and Arthur Kellermann, whose equally provocative study found that guns in the home were 43 times more likely to kill a resident or friend than an armed intruder. 

Much of the legal debate over gun control measures involves their constitutionality. The federal constitution and many state constitutions contain guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms. When a state gun control law is challenged, it is the state constitution that comes into play because the Second Amendment of the federal constitution has not been applied to the states. 

As to the situations covered, it has already been pointed out that the Geneva Protocol only applies to international armed conflicts. In contrast, it is debatable whether the parallel prohibition of chemical warfare in customary international law was and is applicable to non-intemational armed conflicts. Today, States Parties to the CWC clearly state that they will never under any circumstances use chemical weapons. This not only includes international and non-intemational armed conflicts, but it goes far beyond these situations. Rather, the only situations excluded from the prohibition are situations of law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes , as mentioned in Article II, para 9, CWC. This provision only applies to riot control agents, which— as can be taken from Article I, para 5, CWC— are explicitly outlawed as a method of warfare . Thus, the prohibition of use is comprehensive in terms of situations covered, with the only exception of the use of riot control agents for purposes of law enforcement (including riot control). 

---