You might bring to our attention, any new matters, if it is all entirely new matter, if you wish. We will be glad to listen.

Mr. SCHOOLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how to approach it. My viewpoint may be just a little different because my background is perhaps a little different than some of the people testifying here because for some 30 years, I was an enforcement officer, all the way from arresting officer to the head of the Denver Police Department, and sheriff of the county. I have arrested many people and I faced and used firearms and I recognize the problem but I am not sure how I can go about the whole thing unless you read my statement.

There are one or two things that I think should well be considered, in connection with the proposals here, and one of them is in connection with the absolute prohibition with no exceptions, on the interstate movement of handguns. Under the proposed law, the chief of police of Cheyenne could not come to Denver and buy a pistol and take it back with him.

I don't see how that affects crime one way or the other for our law abiding citizens to be thus prohibited.

There is another section in there under destructive devices. I recall the testimony of the Attorney General when he was asked by a gentlemen of this committee whether that would include dynamite and if it does include dynamite, I wonder if anyone thought what this would do to the mining industry. I know that dynamite has been used as a weapon and with deadly effect but I question that a broad statement of this kind is appropriate in an act of this kind.

I also recall a question from one of the gentlemen on the committee to the Attorney General about how many people this might take to enforce. It appears to me that some of the licensing language is taken directly from the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and if the same sort of system would be set up in connection with a hundred thousand licenses, as are set up under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, where they have this large basic permit section, I am reasonably certain with my experience, that it would take several hundred employees to staff an office to conduct these vast field investigations that would be necessary in connection with the licensing prohibitions.

Chairman CELLER. How many licenses are there under that act? There are not very many.

Mr. SCHOOLEY. I don't know how many there are, now, but there are 100,000 firearms licenses.

Chariman CELLER. That may be but that doesn't mean that there is a vast number of agents in the Alcohol Tax Service. As a matter of fact, there are comparatively few.

Mr. SCHOOLEY. These permits are pretty much of a stable thing. Now, if you incorporate into a system, some hundred odd thousand new licenses, it certainly is going to take some people to set up the machinery necessary to process 100,000 applications.

Chairman CELLER. It may be worth while if it could have the effect of stamping out crime.

Mr. SCHOOLEY. Well, I don't know, Mr. Chairman, that I have any more just off-the-cuff comments to make other than what I said in my statement.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. Mathias?

Mr. MATHIAS. No questions.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Mr. Biester?

Mr. BIESTER. No questions.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Counsel?

(No questions)

Acting Chairman CORMAN. We thank you very much, sir, and we will place your entire statement in the record.

We appreciate your not reading it.

Mr. SCHOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in hopes that I might have said it all but I am hoping you will read it. Thank you for permitting me to be here.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Our next speaker will be Neal Knox of Gun Week Newspaper.

STATEMENT OF NEAL KNOX, EDITOR OF GUN WEEK NEWSPAPER

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Mr. Knox, we are pleased to welcome you to the committee.

Mr. McCulloch?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I should like to join you in welcoming Mr. Knox. Sidney, Ohio, is the county seat of Shelby County, Ohio, and Neal Knox and the Amos family have been doing grand jobs in their publishing work, not to mention some other publications in which the Amos family is interested. They are the salt of the earth, and you, too. I am glad you are here.

Mr. KNOX. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, my statement is lengthy. I don't propose to read the statement, but I would like to cover some of the items that are before the committee.

I don't come here as a representative of any group or association. I am simply trying to express to the committee what I believe to be the viewpoint of perhaps the majority of the responsible and farsighted firearms owners in the United States.

Acting Chairman CORMAN. Without objection, we will at this point in the record print your entire statement. We are pleased to hear your summary discussion of it.

Mr. KNOX. Thank you, sir.

(The statement of Mr. Knox is as follows:)

TESTIMONY OF NEAL KNOX, EDITOR OF GUN WEEK NEWSPAPER

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Neal Knox, editor of Gun Week, a weekly newspaper for firearms enthusiasts published at Sidney, Ohio, by the 91-year-old Sidney Printing & Publishing Co.

I do not claim to be a representative of any group or organization, but I hope that my testimony may be of some value to the committee for I believe that it will reflect the opinions of the far-sighted members of the gun fraternity. Among Gun Week's subscribers are devotees of all the many firearms activities-competi tion rifle and pistol shooters, gun and cartridge collectors, trap and skeet enthusiasts, handloaders, hunters, ballistics and gun design buffs, amateur and professional gunsmiths, and many other lesser-known fields of firearms interest and activity. As a whole, our readers have a higher-than-average income, represent all businesses and professions and hold, I am certain, the respect of their com munities as responsible, law-abiding citizens.

The individual members of the gun fraternity are deeply concerned about the legislation now before Congress. They have written to you members of Congress because of that concern and not because anyone told them to write. As a recipient of a considerable number of letters from readers each week, I am fully aware that many have misconceptions of the intentions of sponsors of various bills, but I am also aware that most will support legislation which would effectively deal with problems which do exist.

Most of the gun fraternity is convinced that prohibitive firearms controls-at any level of government-have not and will not reduce crime. We are convinced that federal and state agencies have been woefully negligent in the enforcement of existing federal laws, and that this lack of enforcement has materially contributed to the problem of circumvention of local laws. We are concerned by the ease with which local laws have been and are being circumvented, and although we do not endorse or approve of overly restrictive laws, we cannot as responsible citizens continue to allow their easy circumvention due to the lack of federal controls. I hope to be able to adequately document to your satisfaction our reasons for opposing restrictive legislation and to make some suggestions for workable controls which will be both fair and effective in assisting the states in the enforcement of their laws. I hope to convince the committee that the drastic steps recommended by the Administration and included in H.R. 5384 go far beyond the solution of the problems which exist; that the provisions will work an injustice upon the millions of responsible firearms owners; and that this piece of legislation must be considered dangerous since, if improperly administered, its provisions could be misused to a degree beyond the conception or intention of its supporters.

CRIME STATISTICS JUGGLED

The advocates of restrictive firearms control laws would have you believe that prohibitive gun laws will reduce crime. The most frequently used tactic is to make broad generalizations that murder rates are highest in areas with minimal controls. This is not necessarily so. Some areas with minimal control laws have very low murder rates. On the other hand, some areas with the strictest controls have the highest rates-as we shall see.

Another misleading tactic is to show that the percentage of murders committed with firearms is lower in areas with strict controls on guns than it is in areas with minimal controls. I cannot understand why this piece of statistical juggling is so effective or so frequently used. For some reason most people don't notice that the areas cited for having high percentages of murders committed with guns often have much lower murder rates. It would not take a genius to conclude that there would be fewer people killed in bus wrecks if we banned buses from our nation's highways. However, it would take a genius to prove that removing buses from the highways would result in fewer total traffic deaths.

This is precisely the approach that the advocates of restrictive controls have used in an attempt to prove their arguments. In 1965, when Senator Thomas Dodd introduced an earlier version of the bill which you have before you today, he cited the low incidence of murders committed with guns in five cities with strict control laws. He failed to state that each of those cities, at that time, had murder rates roughly equal to or higher than the national average. In the past two years each of those cities has experienced an increase in murder rate well above the national increase and all now have murder rates considerably higher than the national average. During the same period, one of the two cities which the Senator from Connecticut cited for having minimal controls and high gun use in murder has experienced a virtually unchanged murder rate; the other has experienced a reduction in its murder rate. The advocates of such laws as H.R. 5384 ignore these trends and ignore the many cities with minimal control laws which have murder rates much lower than the cities with strict controls.

Earlier this year when Senator Dodd introduced the Senate counterpart of H.R. 5384, he again used the argument that areas which had more guns had a larger percentage of murders with guns. It is interesting to note that the four states which he commended for having rigid firearms controls have each experienced significant increases in murder rates during the past two years while three of the six states which he criticized for having minimal controls experienced decreases in murder rates during that same period-although the national trend was upward.

It is also interesting that Senator Dodd failed to mention the state with minimal controls which had the highest percentage of its murders committed

with firearms. From 1962 to 1965, 100 percent of Vermont's murders were committed with firearms-all seven of them.

AVAILABILITY VERSUS MURDER RATES

The findings and declaration included in the preface of H.R. 5384 states that the availability of firearms is one of the causes of crime. If this were true, the State of Utah should surely have one of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation, for a recent survey by the Utah Department of Fish and Game indicates that there is an average of four guns in each home in the state. Although Utah is a sparsely settled state, three-fourths of its residents live in urban areas and more than half live in Salt Lake City which has a population of more than 500,000. As would be expected 72.3 percent of the state's murders from 1962 to 1965 were with firearms, but the state's murder rate was only 1.5, one of the lowest in the nation.

The advocates of restrictive controls have for years "pointed with pride" at the low crime and murder statistics in New York and particularly New York City. The myth of the so-called effectiveness of the Sullivan Law, which has virtually eliminated legal handguns from the law-abiding citizens of New York City, was exploded in February. The city's new police commissioner, Howard Leary, stated that the crime reporting system which had been in use had resulted in many crimes being listed as lesser crimes and many major crimes not being included in the reports. In other words much of New York's crime was being swept under the rug. The result of the more truthful reporting required by Leary was that the city had a “statistical” jump in crime of 72.1 percent and a "real" increase of only 6.5 percent, he said.

According to New York City police, in 1966 the city had a murder rate of 8.4 per 100,000. The borough of Manhattan had a murder rate of 15.13 compared to the 1965 national average rate of 5.1. The advocates of strict controls might attempt to soften this blow by pointing out that only 31.8 percent of these murders were committed with firearms, but I'm afraid it won't do them much good to try. Of the 654 murders committed during 1966 in New York City, knives or sharp instruments were used in 263 cases, physical force was used in 110 murders, blunt objects were used in 41 cases and 24 murders were committed with rifles or shotguns. Despite the prohibitions and stiff penalties for possessing a handgun without a license, pistols and revolvers were used in 184 murders-more handgun murders than the number of murders of all types reported in 1965 by 31 states. According to a letter I received last week from the New York City Police Department, not one of those handguns used in murder was licensed, as required by law.

The chief argument for restrictive gun control laws is that the will prevent the lawless from obtaining guns. But New York City's experience should show even the most skeptical that the people who are likely to commit murder and other crimes will in some way obtain a gun, if they want one, regardless how severe the prohibitions may be. The 8 million residents of New York City represent only 4.1 percent of the nation's population. For practical purposes handguns are totally forbidden, yet the number of handgun murders in New York City last year is equal to 4.6 percent of all the handgun murders committed in the nation in 1965.

New York City's murders with handguns increased 20 percent over 1965. according to the police department's letter. Can this increase and the city's total increase in murder be blamed on mail order sales, or the ability to buy them in other states? Hardly, for it is no easier for the lawless to obtain handguns now than it was a half-dozen years ago. If anything, it is more difficult to buy guns legally. Would a stronger handgun prohibition law have prevented some of these murders? Hardly, for how could any law be more prohibitive than the existing law. The point, gentlemen, is that the criminal is by definition someone who breaks the law. And the type of person who will commit murder, as a rule, will pay little attention to laws made for the law-abiding.

I could cite many other examples of the fallacies of the arguments presented by the advocates of restrictive gun laws, but the true statistics of New York City crime speak more eloquently than could I.

INDEPENDENT STUDY NEEDED

Gentlemen, the obvious lack of relationship between gun laws and crimes points out the pressing need for an independent study of the factors which contribute to crime and the effect, if any, of restrictive firearms laws upon crime, Although there have been countless millions of words of opinion expressed upon this issue, and although various so-called studies have reached sweeping conclusions based upon the most cursory examinations of the facts, there has been, to my knowledge, only one in-depth study of the effects of firearms licensing and control laws upon crime. That study, which was mentioned last week in the testimony of the Honorable John Dingell of Michigan, was prepared in 1960 by the Wisconsin Legislative Reference at the request of the state legislature. It concluded precisely what the gun fraternity has contended for years--that strict firearms controls have no apparent effect upon crime.

I urge that Congress authorize a qualified independent firm such as Arthur D. Little, Inc., to make a complete and thorough study based on the records of the effectiveness of various degrees and types of firearms control laws. I am confident that such an unbiased and detailed study of crime records compared to gun control laws and to population density, economic and social conditions and the other factors which the FBI states contribute to crime will vindicate the opposition of the firearms fraternity and the Congress to unduly restrictive laws. Moreover, the study, by probing the effectiveness of the many various degrees of firearms control laws in effect in various areas could result in recommendations to be used by states and cities in drafting new legislation. I believe the researchers would be surprised at the minimal control level beyond which firearms control legislation ceases to be effective.

SEVERE PENALTIES

I feel that such a study should also probe the deterrent values of mandatory penalties for certain crimes-again on the basis of facts and not opinion. I am not a criminologist, but as a newspaper reporter I had the opportunity to become much better acquainted with crime and criminals than does the average citizen. It is my belief that legislation to provide for severe penalties for the misuse of firearms, such as has been proposed by the Honorable Bob Casey of Texas would result in a sizeable reduction in the criminal use of firearms, particularly armed robbery and felony murder-the type of crime the public most fears. It would work as a two-edged sword, for if the knowledge of almost certain severe punishment failed to deter the criminal, his imprisonment for a long term would most certainly reduce the incidence of crime. Although crime has risen sharply in the last few years, the prison population is declining. The trend toward minimal sentences and the early parole of criminals, the majority of whom, according to statistics, will commit additional crimes during the term of their adjudged but unserved sentences, cannot help but be a major factor in our rising crime rates. I am acquainted with the case of an armed robber who received 16 years on each of two crimes, one a bank robbery. Due to the sentences being allowed to run concurrently and due to the leniencies of the parole system, that man was recently released after serving only two years and two months in prison. It is my sincere hope that this man will stay away from crime, but according to the FBI averages he will be arrested six more times in the next 10 years.

If the record of the courts indicated swift and severe punishment for perpetrators of crimes of violence, or if the penal systems could show a good record of rehabilitation I would be opposed to all mandatory sentences, but sentencing is slow, punishment soft and rehabilitation unlikely. Crime pays too well for the risks involved. The crime situation is critical and shows no signs of abating. I believe this situation deserves drastic measures. I know that there is almost unanimous support among the firearms fraternity for strict punishment of those who misuse firearms.

THE PROBLEM OF REDUCING MURDER

Although such a measure would, I believe, make felony murders as relatively rare as the Lindbergh Law make kidnaping for ransom, it would not make a particularly noticeable dent in the overall murder rate. For the arguments against a mandatory sentence for common murder-if I may use such a term