I believe that the College's recent recommendation on gun ownership [1] is fundamentally flawed. The recommendation is contrary to long-standing criminologic experience, violates the fundamental rights enjoyed by a free people, and, if enacted as law, might increase firearm-related deaths.

Cesare Beccaria [2], the founder of scientific criminology, understood the folly of gun control laws in practical terms: False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience.... The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things much worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the fundamental right of a free people to keep arms. The Second Amendment uses the phrase "a well-regulated militia" to describe the people who enjoy this right. This phrase, in historical context, defined the armed volunteer adult male citizenry.

Finally, the recommendation may increase the risk for firearm-related injury and death. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "self-defense gun use ... is associated with a reduced risk of physical attack and injury" [3]. Indeed, a restriction on handguns might actually increase the number of deaths related to firearm injuries. Kleck [4] has estimated that rifles or shotguns could easily be substituted for handguns in 54% to 80% of all homicides. Because the ballistics of long guns render them inherently more lethal than handguns, a prohibition of handguns might increase the mortality rate from armed crimes.