The possession of a handgun greatly increases the possibility that you or someone you love will be killed as a result of that weapon.

All present public opinion surveys indicate that fear of criminal attack and homicide is rampant in the mind of our urban dwellers. Such fear may indeed be the most destructive single force in the deterioration of the American city. Yet of all the causes of death, murder is an infinitesimal percentage, and even if we chose to deal only with violent death, criminal homicide rates as one of the smaller of the causes.

Automobile accidents, for example, cause five times as many violent deaths as does homicide. Home and industrial accidents cause two and one-half times as many. Falls cause twice as many, and more than twice as many people commit suicide as are killed by the willful act of another. Almost as many people die by fire each year in these United States as are murdered, and very nearly as many people die by drowning to name just two other risks in our daily lives to which few of us ever give more than a passing thought.

In the 7 years as district attorney of San Francisco, I thought that I had seen my share of homicides. Those years were wartime years with all of the violence that grew out of a war, but in the 25 or 27 years that have elapsed since that time, the homicide has gone up, and up and up. And as attorney general of California I served 8 years, and the attorney general is the chief law officer in the State of California, the chief law official. All of the chiefs of police, all of the sheriffs, all of the district attorneys come generally under his jurisdiction. And, of course, as the Governor of California, it was my job to determine clemency in particular cases, and I would read the record of the 70 or 75 homicide convictions that came to me during the period that I was Governor.

A murder mystery writer hypothesizes a single evil malefactor who concocts a long-range plot to kill an innocent party for his (or her) money. There may be such murders. But I have had contact with, perhaps, 500 murders without ever seeing one which fits the pattern. The closest to this pattern in our day, or course, are the gangland executions of the Mafia. But here the evil purpose is sustained by numbers of conspirators and enforced by the discipline of the mob.

Most murder in real life comes from a compound of anger, passion, intoxication, and accident-mixed in varying portions. The victims are wives, hubands, girl friends, boy friends, prior friends or close acquaintances (until just before the fatal event). The quarrels which most frequently trigger murder might well result in nothing more than bloody noses or a lot of noise, absent a deadly weapon-handy and loaded.

All the statistics show that if you choose with care the people who will share your bedroom with you or your kitchen, or the adjacent bar stool, you will improve your chances from one in 20,000 to one in 60.000.

As for the one-third of murders committed by strangers, the overwhelming motive is robbery. Murder generally results from resistance and surprise. Police recommendations in every city are unanimous in counseling against a holdup or burglary victim in attempting resistance. Reaching for a gun is a most dangerous possible gesture when confronted by an armed felon. Outside of the movies, there

are few people who win in trying to draw when someone else has a gun in his hand.

Nothing which I have said to this point is designed to minimize the problem of criminal homicide which we face in this country. We have a murder rate over 10 times that of Great Britain-and, as we will see, since the mid-1960's it has been increasing. I believe deeply in the sanctity of human life and in the duty of our country to guard and protect its citizens. But the mythology of murder has occasioned all too many people purchasing arms as a means of self-defense when, in fact, such measures greatly increase the hazard to them and their loved ones.

This brings me directly to the topic of gun control.

During the past 312 years I have served as Chairman of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws. Recently this Commission sent its final report to the President and to Congress. The report deals, of course, with the whole of the criminal law and must be judged on more than just its recommendations on the most controversial topics. There was a substantial minority of the Commission which opposed any new gun control laws. But this is what the report says concerning the majority position on gun control: [A] majority of Commissioners recommend that Congress :

(1) ban the production and possession of, and trafficking in, handguns, with exceptions only for military, police and similar official activities; and (2) require registration of all firearms.

Among the arguments supporting the majority view are the following. Crimes of violence and accidental homicides will be markedly reduced by suppression of handguns, which, on the one hand, are distinctively susceptible to criminal and impetuous use, and, on the other hand, are not commonly used for sporting purposes as are long guns. State control is ineffective because of differing policies and leakage between states. A comprehensive and uniform registration law will facilitate tracing a firearm when it has been used for criminal purposes.

And you can only look at some of the sensational and notorious cases of the past 2 years to see what happens and the assistance had from the registration statutes we have at the present time.

The working papers of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws and the staff report of the Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence contain some compelling data concerning the relationship between murder and handguns:

(1) Between 1962 and 1968, sales of long guns doubled while sales of handguns quadrupled (10 million sold in the last decade). Also note that since 1963, homicides involving firearms have increased 48 percent while homicides by other means have risen only 10 percent.

(2) Handguns are the predominant weapon in crime, although they comprise only 27 percent of firearms in the country. Of crimes involving firearms, handguns are used in 76 percent of homicides, 86 percent of aggravated assaults, and 96 percent of robberies.

(3) The Commission studied three major areas of crime: homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault. They found that:

Two out of every three homicides, over a third of all robberies, and one out of five aggravated assaults are committed with a gun, usually a handgun.

I am referring, of course, to the report of the Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence-not our Commission.

(4) Regarding homicides, they observe that firearms are "virtually the only weapon used in killing police officers," and that handguns have been involved in eight of the nine assassination attempts on Presidents or presidential candidates.

(5) Year 1966 data shows that the rate of accidental firearm deaths by geographic region parallels the pattern of firearms ownership. Over half of firearms accidents involving fatalities occur in or around the home, and about 40 percent of the victims are children or teenagers.

(6) Firearms were used in 47 percent of all completed suicide attempts.

(7) The fatality rate of the knife (the next most frequently used weapon) is about one-fifth that of the gun. A rough approximation would suggest that the use of knives instead of guns might cause 80 percent fewer fatalities.

No one who fairly contemplates the criminal carnage which occurs in the United States can fail to conclude that disarming the criminal element of our population is essential to our civilization. National statistics indicate that over 6,000 homicides occur in the United States each year with the use of firearms. Yearly we produce a murder rate more than 10 times that of England-and that of many other European countries. I know of no way by which we can achieve disarming the criminal or the criminally inclined without accepting the flat prohibition of some weapons and the sale and use of others under some regulation.

The theory believed by many that as a nation we cannot legally accomplish reasonable firearm control because of the second amendment to the Constitution is simply not valid.

And in my statement I have cited an opinion of the Supreme Court. But, of course, this is a question of debate and legal scholars will differ on that.

Senator BAYH. We will ask that your entire statement, without objection, be put in the record relative to that.

Mr. BROWN. The language of the amendment and its historic interpretation in the courts is not nearly as restrictive as is popularly believed.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Brown on the second amendment to the Constitution follows:)

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic United States Supreme Court interpretation of this amendment came in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, from which we quote the holding in the opinion of Mr. Justice McReynolds:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn) 154, 158.

"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed

in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178. See also, United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3d Cir. 1942), Goodrich, J.; Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), and Velazquez v. United States, 319 U.S. 770 (1943).

Thus far in the United States Supreme Court the right to carry arms is applicable to the sort of arms which "a well regulated militia” would carry.

Mr. BROWN. While rifles and shotguns have legitimate relationship to the second amendment and have legitimate value for both hunting and home defense, handguns suitable for concealment are basically the weapons of the assassin, not of the militia.

Acquaintance with this problem as district attorney and attorney general in California and at least as an occasional hunter convinces me that these two steps should be taken to lessen our criminal carnage: 1. The manufacture and sale and possession of handguns suitable for concealed weapons should be prohibited by State and Federal law. 2. The purchase and possession of rifles or shotguns should, in my judgment, be a matter of right for any law-abiding citizen. Such weapons should, however, be registered under State law and sold only on proper identification.

These were the specific recommendations of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws. I speak for myself and a majority of my fellow Commissioners.

Let me conclude by stating that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." In the 1970's in this country gun control may well be the price we have to pay for civilization.

Thank you.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Governor.

I had a number of questions I was going to ask, but your very good statement answers most of them in advance.

Let me just deal with one or two points.

You point out that in the last decade 10 million handguns were sold, and I think the total figure here estimated by the Violence Commission, is that there are about 24 million handguns in possession. Passing this bill, of course, deals with the future.

Now, what do we do about those that are already out there? Mr. BROWN. I would, personally recommend that handguns be made contraband, and I recognize the gargantuan task of trying to seize 10 million guns or making law violators of 10 million people that now possess guns, and the only answer I can give you to that question is that you have to begin someplace. You have a moratorium for a period for the purpose of turning them in, or do like they did in San Francisco where the mayor asked the people to turn in their handguns, and they did it. And you then can discover how well we are doing. It is a very difficult question. And you also have the problem of the law-abiding citizen will turn in his gun and the evil-doer will not.

But, weighing all of these problems as against the continuing possession of handguns, I feel that we should take the general position that handguns should be barred except by police officials and other

authorized people, and then, try to find out how to seize them in the days ahead. It is the balancing of equities for evils, whichever way you want to put it.

Senator BAYH. The hard question to answer is the one you pose. The corner groceryman who has had two robberies, he feels the need to protect himself, although you point out that maybe is the best way to get his head blown off.

Mr. BROWN. I have talked with police chiefs about this very problem, because that concerned me, and they tell me that he will be far better off if he does not have a gun in his store, that in robberies the majority of killings has taken place as the result of the shopkeeper trying to protect his property, trying to pick up a gun and outshoot the robber.

The same thing is true of the house prowler, the burglar that will come in your house, and when you try to get up or get the gun this is when he will kill you, too.

Senator BAYH. We, of course, are talking about, in this particular piece of legislation, an inferior quality weapon.

Let me ask you if you feel a national safety standard or some standard could be developed and implemented that could be met reasonably by gun manufacturers so that the Secretary of the Treasury or some other official determining this would have meaning? Is that a reasonable thing?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I favor your bill, because this would certainly be a step in the right direction, and I assume that is why it will be opposed by my friends in the National Rifle Association.

But, nevertheless, I think standards can be evolved, though I really feel the only way you are going to solve the problem is by the outlawing of handguns. I see no reason for having a handgun, a concealable weapon, on your person. I mean long guns, rifles, shotguns for hunting, you have an absolute right as an American citizen to own and to shoot. It is necessary in a great many cases to have shotguns and rifles. But a handgun, I am absolutely opposed to it. I see no reason for it whatsoever, and I would make them contraband, despite the difficulty of enforcing this provision.

Senator BAYH. I shall ask one final question, and then I am sure that the Senator from Nebraska will have some.

You point out actively the myth relative to the stranger concept. If most murders with firearms are committed by someone known to the victim, is there not somewhat of a inconsistency in your position that this would be solved by saying you cannot own a handgun but can own a shotgun? Does not the solution seem to be total prohibition of long guns also, or registration and licensing, does it not? This does not deal with this problem, because we cannot devise a test which will accurately predict when that breakdown is going to occur which will cause somebody to go to the corner and secure a handgun or a long gun. This is an emotional or psychological thing that comes upon us unexpectedly.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I make the distinction because there is a purpose with a rifle. I mean, there is hunting, and the same thing with the shotgun. But I see no reason whatsoever for a person to have a handgun in their house or in their drawer readily available, easy to pick up, easy to shoot, in your home or in your office or any other place.