Would you advocate any type of law or some procedure whereby a child is educated in the proper use of weapons?

Mr. PEELER. I advocate no law in this area. I do advocate very strongly and I have taught my own children, first of all-safety attitudes toward guns-and this begins with toy guns. When a boy is old enough, he should be allowed a .22 rifle, under careful super

vision.

My boy is now 8. I go with him. We set up targets against a safe backstop. I give him one cartridge at a time; he loads the rifle, fires it, he examines his target with an open bolt; he examines his target and then he is ready for another round. I think that definitely all children, whether or not they are going to handle firearms, should be educated in the safety considerations of firearms, to have some understanding of what they are and what they do, and personally, I would like to see them trained to the point where they could use them with a reasonable degree of competence.

Mr. BEEKS. What about parents who aren't quite as responsible as you are? For example, would you support an effort to require minors or perhaps even adults to get a certificate from some reputable organization, like the National Rifle Association, or a similar club, that they do have a proficiency in safe weapon's use?

Mr. PEELER. You are assuming the case where a parent perhaps would not be competent to give this training?

Mr. BEEKS. Not competent or not interested.

Mr. PEELER. If the parent isn't interested, he better not give the child a gun. If he doesn't feel capable or doesn't have the time, I think certainly the child should be trained in the Scouts-both Boy and Girl Scouts have this, a number of other organizations do; voluntary instructors; there are a number of sources. In many cases the wildlife people give training to children. It should begin first with safety training and then with marksmanship training.

Mr. BEEKS. Then you wouldn't oppose a State statute, for example, which said you had to get some statement from a reputable club that you demonstrated proficient use of firearms?

Mr. PEELER. They would have to have such a certificate in order to obtain a hunting license, for example.

Mr. BEEKS. Or just to possess a weapon. Possess or use a weapon? Mr. PEELER. I don't advocate possession of weapons by children. I'm afraid I don't undertand your question.

Mr. BEEKS. Or use of weapons, adult or child?

Mr. PEELER. I would say a law which said they must either demonstrate competence in the safe use of them, or that they must be supervised by an adult

Mr. BEEKS. You wouldn't have to go to the police department. You would go to the National Rifleman's Association, or the local hunting club or similar organization.

Mr. PEELER. Or the game protector.

Mr. BEEKS. Right.

Mr. PEELER. I am always leery of legislation on this field. I think the responsibility in this area rests in the home. I won't personally be opposed to a regulation that a child had to have evidence of competence or he had to be supervised, no.

Mr. BEEKS. Well, do you believe that minors under 18 should not use or possess a weapon without parental consent?

Mr. PEELER. Now by possession you mean having physical control of, I assume?

Mr. BEEKS. Yes.

Mr. PEELER. I would say that having to have parental consent is a reasonable requirement-to make the parent responsible.

Mr. BEEKS. There is one area which we haven't emphasized too much in these hearings. You and other witnesses have emphasized the need for greater penalties for the misuse of weapons. There is an old saying about "An ounce of prevention ***"

In other words, one of the problems before the committee is how to insure the safe, legal use of weapons and at the same time to deter their misuse. We have laws which deter on one hand and punish on the other. Senator Dodd's bill, I think, is a bill to deter, as opposed to punish. This is just one of the problems before the committee. Mr. PEELER. The only difficulty with it is it won't have the effect it is designed to have. If we could deter people, certainly. Legislation does deter some people.

For example, I am deterred from going out and having an illegal machinegun, because, well, first of all, I have no requirement for it. But if I felt I wanted one, I would consider it several times before I went out and got one and incurred the penalties associated there. I don't think that the Dodd bill, as presently set up, or any bill I can think of, would keep people from getting weapons when they wanted them.

Mr. BEEKS. I am not suggesting the Dodd bill would or would not accomplish the result. But one area of concern, for example, is, let's say, a child who clips out a coupon to get a weapon through the mails, mail-order weapon, without the approval of his parents.

How do we prevent this?

Mr. PEELER. You can't in all cases. I will say in a home where a child can do this without his parents' knowledge, there is some element of supervision lacking. There are many problems involved in this: how he acquires the money, how he gets the order off, how he gets the weapon in, how he conceals it, and so on. If the parent is paying proper attention to the child, I would say somewhere along the line they would detect that he was doing this.

But to me this should not be a problem. If a child is interestedfor example, I have an 8-year-old boy that is very much interested in mechanical things, and I allow him to disassemble weapons. He is quite careful. He will check that they aren't loaded, even though he knows that they are not loaded. I allow him to disassemble these things. He has an air rifle and a .22. When he wants to use them, he can ask me and I will go with him, if I have time. If not, we will make an agreement when we will go.

The parent-if the child has interest in this area-can satisfy that interest without making the child break the law, if he goes along with it. Perhaps one of these youngsters orders a gun by mail; let the kid get it and tear it apart, so long as the parent supervises it.

In my case, I would tend to get it myself and I would supervise it. But let the kid take the thing apart-find out how it works. He will lose interest in it later on, or he will maybe get the bug and he will be interested in these things.

Mr. BEEKS. Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Peeler.

Mr. PEELER. Could I add one thing, sir?

When I came up here, I was terribly concerned that the committee was not giving proper consideration to this thing, or that they might not be. I must say that from what I have seen today, it indicates you are going into this thoroughly, and I, for one, appreciate it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I think counsel raised a fine point in the last question. We haven't gone into this thoroughly this afternoon because of the passage of time and other engagements coming up at 4 o'clock, but a number of witnesses have stressed "no more laws," but tough penalties. Send them to the penitentiary longer, or do away with their rights of defense, anybody that is charged with crime.

Some of the testimony has assumed you have two classes of citizens: the law-abiding and the non-law-abiding. There are, but the only way you tell which is which is after trial.

Now this is preventative law, preventative medicine, just like the regulation of narcotics, to keep people from getting hold of things or doing things that might lead to further difficulties. Many of the witnesses here have offered what seemed to me harsher alternatives than the things we propose.

If a man does anything with one of these weapons, they say throw the book at him. We get into fields of penology, sociology, and time doesn't permit us to go into those right here.

Mr. PEELER. Sir, this is a matter, I think, of education, and early education at that.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you. I would like to go into those things, but we hadn't scheduled these hearings this afternoon; the vote this morning forced them and I regret we don't have an opportunity, Mr. Peeler, because I have been, as an old schoolteacher, intrigued by your training of children, your proposal for universal training in the use of arms.

It is a very intriguing subject. You would have much objection to that over the country if you attempted to put that in on a nationwide basis.

The next witness is Mr. Lloyd Swift.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD W. SWIFT, VICE PRESIDENT, BOONE & CROCKETT CLUB, CARE OF AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement here which I would like to read.

I am Lloyd W. Swith, vice president of the Boone & Crockett Club, which has its headquarters in the American Museum of Natural History, in New York City.

The Boone & Crockett Club was founded in December 1887 by Theodore Roosevelt, who with other influential persons saw the necessity for an organization of select sportsmen to spearhead an assault in that early day against the massive problems facing the big game, public lands, and forest resources of the Nation.

Appalled by the thoughtless ravaging of America's natural resources, Roosevelt and his associates were determined to enlist official and public support for necessary reforms. Roosevelt served as the club's first president, from 1888 through 1894, and he remained an active member until his death.

Statesmen and conservationists have shared in the work of the club since its establishment. Included among them were such leaders as Gifford Pinchot, Elihu Root, Jay N. "Ding" Darling, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., and Henry L. Stimson. Through the years the Boone & Crockett Club has been at the forefront in efforts to establish and protect the national forests, parks, and wildlife refuges. A recent book, "Crusade for Wildlife: Highlights in Conservation Progress" by James B. Trefethen, details the club's origin and its activities in behalf of natural resources conservation.

Theodore Roosevelt's interest in firearms as a hunter and a collector is widely known. He advocated their use in hunting and target shooting, and he recognized also that outdoor sport of this kind would provide a trained citizenry for national defense. One objective of the club he formed, as would be expected, is "to promote manly sport with the rifle."

Roosevelt never lost interest in furthering that objective. He remained a shooter and a hunter throughout his adult life, and he unceasingly encouraged others to hunt and to involve themselves in wildlife conservation. Although he became President of the United States as a result of the assassination of President McKinley, and himself was wounded by a would-be assassin in 1912, Roosevelt never advocated abridgement of an American's right to bear and use firearms. Instead, by example of his vigorous outdoor life, he did much to popularize hunting and the sporting use of firearms.

The members of the Boone & Crockett Club, like sportsmen throughout the country, are concerned about the antifirearms sentiment that has arisen in the wake of President Kennedy's unfortunate death. This concern is heightened by the large number of proposals for greater restrictions that have been introduced in the Congress and in the State legislatures and by the erroneous writings and statements that continue to appear in the press.

Sportsmen share fully the desire of law-abiding citizens everywhere to see a reduction in crime. We know from experience, however, that action to curb the use of firearms in crime is neither as easy nor as effective as some persons would lead the public to believe.

In truth, there is no magic formula. There is no simple, one-step legislation that will end crime of any kind. The ramifications of crime, its causes and reasons, are much too broad. The practical approach, it appears, would be to move to correct the situations that contribute to crime.

One of these, according to available evidence, involves the use of pistols and revolvers by juveniles and by criminals, addicts, and other undesirables in the commission of crime. Although it never will be possible to prevent the determined criminal from obtaining a weapon, S. 1975, as introduced, offers an opportunity to control an avenue whereby juveniles, criminals, and others may circumvent local and State laws and regulations and obtain pistols and revolvers.

S. 1975, as initially introduced, has the support of law enforcement, juvenile authority, and shooting and sporting groups. Representatives of those groups helped in drafting and perfecting the bill, and from their considerable experience they were able to develop recommendations for controlling the sale and shipment of pistols and revolvers in conformance with applicable laws and regulations.

The Boone & Crockett Club, like other groups, thought that it would not have serious objection to the enactment of S. 1975 in its original form. Pistols and revolvers are the type of firearms used mostly in armed crime, but even in this category, according to a 1960 study of violent crimes of all kinds by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Only one-eighth of the assaults were accomplished with a firearm of any kind." Knives were the weapons used in almost half of all violent crimes, the FBI found.

The possible salutary effect of S. 1975, if enacted as first introduced, would be to make it more difficult for a juvenile, or a criminal, or other undesirable to conceal his age, record, or failure to comply with applicable State and local law, when attempting to purchase a pistol or revolver through the mail. It is not believed, however, that the enactment of S. 1975 or any other antifirearms measure will have any appreciable effect in reducing armed crime. The bill's strongest point is that juveniles would find it more difficult to purchase pistols and revolvers through the mail.

No restrictive firearms law will deter premeditated crime, because the penalty for falsely obtaining firearms for criminal purposes is insignificant compared to the penalty for the contemplated crime itself. It is not believed that the hardened criminal, bent on obtaining a pistol or revolver for use in committing a crime, will be deterred by the mere threat of the minor penalty for obtaining a gun falsely or by stealing it.

Like others, the members of the Boone & Crockett Club believe the amendment to extend the proposed provisions of S. 1975 to all firearms would be inadvisable and unacceptable.

Sporting shotguns and rifles rarely are involved in the commission of armed crime. They are used by millions of sportsmen each year for target, trap, and skeet shooting, and hunting, however.

Many of our citizens reside in rural areas and any action that would restrict the ease with which sporting firearms may be ordered through the mail or require special trips to notaries and the like would be an inconvenience that would be resented. We believe it would be grossly unfair to the millions of American shooters to enact legislation that would subject them to further restriction and regulation and further complicate their daily affairs, when such an action would make so little positive contribution to the reduction of armed crimes.

S. 1975, as first introduced, appears to offer a means of limiting the ease with which juveniles, criminals, and other undesirables may obtain pistols and revolvers. As introduced, the measure reflects the experience and the judgment of law enforcement, juvenile experts, and shooting groups.

It offers a rational means of curbing the flow of pistols and revolvers into the hands of juveniles, criminals, and unstable persons. And equally important, it recognizes the rights and responsibilities of the millions of law-abiding Americans who use firearms for all kinds of healthful and traditional recreational purposes.

The subsequent amendments proposed to S. 1975 would conflict with these rights and responsibilities and would inconvenience millions of Americans without any assurance of any greater reduction of crime whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement.