THE FIRST PRESENTATION ARGUES FOR THE PASSAGE OF HR 40, A BILL PRESENTED IN THE 94TH CONGRESS WHICH PROHIBITS THE IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, SALE, PURCHASE, TRANSFER, RECEIPT, POSSESSION, OR TRANSPORTATION OF HANDGUNS OR HANDGUN AMMUNITION, EXCEPT FOR OR BY AUTHORIZED PERSONS. THE RATIONALE FOR THE BILL IS THE PREVENTION OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF DEATHS CAUSED BY HANDGUNS IN THE HOME AND EASILY AVAILABLE TO CRIMINALS. DEATHS DUE TO THE USE OF HANDGUNS IN AN EMOTIONAL MOMENT OF A FAMILY QUARREL OR IN ACCIDENTAL FIRINGS ARE CITED AS REASONS FOR PROHIBITING PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS. THE LOW RATE OF CRIME COMMITTED WITH HANDGUNS IN COUNTRIES WHERE GUN CONTROL IS OPERATIVE IS ALSO CITED AS A REASON FOR STRICT HANDGUN CONTROL LEGISLATION. IN A SECOND PRESENTATION HANDGUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IS VIEWED AS AN UNNECESSARY INTRUSION UPON THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO BEAR ARMS AND PROTECT HIMSELF. FURTHER, THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL OF HANDGUNS WOULD BE EXPENSIVE AND INEFFECTIVE IN ACHIEVING THE PROMISED RESULTS OF REDUCED VIOLENT CRIME IN THIS OPPOSITION VIEW. IT IS BELIEVED THE ABOLITION OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF HANDGUNS WOULD PRODUCE AN EXPANDED BLACKMARKET FOR WEAPONS THAT COULD BE OBTAINED EASILY BY CRIMINALS. A THIRD PRESENTATION ARGUES FOR HANDGUN CONTROL ON THE BASIS OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF DEATHS CAUSED BY HANDGUNS EACH YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES. A FINAL PRESENTATION ARGUES THAT HANDGUN CONTROL WOULD PENALIZE THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN WHILE LEAVING THE CRIMINALS ARMED WITH GUNS OBTAINED ON THE BLACKMARKET. EXISTING LAWS ARE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH THE UNLAWFUL USE OF HANDGUNS, IF LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS WERE MORE EFFECTIVE. FURTHER, IT IS ARGUED THAT NO EVIDENCE EXISTS TO ESTABLISH THAT STRICT HANDGUN CONTROL LEGISLATION HAS REDUCED CRIMES IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS WHERE IT EXISTS. (RCB)