The Second Amendment, guns and death

[Rhino]

3/12/2008 8:24:00 AM
The Second Amendment, guns and death

By JACK LeMOULT
Guest Columnist

After my father died, friends advised my seventy-year-old mother to get a gun for protection. My brothers and I insisted that she not do so. I told her that if she got a gun, the only thing she would accomplish would be to enable an intruder to take the gun away from her and shoot her with it. I am sure that this would apply to millions of Americans who think that having a gun would provide them with some kind of security. It would do no such thing. Surveys have shown that having a gun in the house significantly heightens the danger to the occupants.

Now comes a Commentary in the Greene County Dailies by Sandy Froman, former president of the NRA, and Ken Blackwell, unsuccessful candidate for Ohio governor and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee. They argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans’ right to own guns and that people should be able to have handguns in their homes for safety and defense.

The Second Amendment says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In the case of United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that the government could regulate the possession of firearms because the Second Amendment means only that the states are permitted to have a “well regulated” militia. It doesn’t mean that private citizens are entitled to own guns. Many lower courts have followed the decision in United States v. Miller. ....http://xeniagazette.1upmonitor.com/main.asp?SectionID=17&SubSectionID=452&ArticleID=158691&TM=31489.78

It gets worse as you go further down.

[Rhino]

I submitted a rebuttal in a letter to the editor, but they probably won't print it because it's very long.

Letter to the editor:

While I may be late in joining the discussion, I've just finished reading "The Second Amendment, guns and death", Jack LeMoult, Xenia Gazette, 3/12/2008. While I confess that attorneys are not a group that I hold in the most high regard, I do think them to be quite well educated. So I must admit that I was surprised at the number of inaccuracies in his article. Surveys have not shown that having a gun in the house significantly heightens the danger to the occupants, as Mr. LeMoult claims. They have shown that about 46% of Americans believe that to be the case1, but belief does not make it true. Surveys do not establish fact. They merely solicit opinions. While one could certainly make the argument that guns, since they represent a potential for injury, could be seen as heightening danger, that argument would apply to just about any item in the home, such as bicycles.

There are many empirical studies out there concerning the danger of guns in the home, most of them medically related. Viewed in microcosm, it is quite easy to conclude from these studies that guns do indeed represent a higher danger. However, one must note that most of the studies don’t take injuries into account, very few cite instances where a gun was involved but never fired (or missed the intended victim) and almost none take into account defensive uses of guns in the household, all of which would be necessary if one is to gauge the overall risk. For example several empirical studies have shown the defensive use of guns to be in the millions each year. Out of 11 national studies, the lowest figure cited was 764,00015 The exact figure is disputed because almost no one keeps citable statistics on these events, like they do with the statistics kept on gun deaths, but the number is still inarguably higher than those of deaths to family members in the home. In fact, many studies cite deaths of family members in the home as proof of danger, when in fact many of those deaths were the result of self defense against said family member, mostly domestic violence cases. And the overwhelming majority of those self defense uses involve never actually firing the gun. A 1982 survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim15. "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."17

Mr. LeMoult is also incorrect in the matter of United States v. Miller, because the Supreme Court did not hold that the Second Amendment means only that the states are permitted to have a well regulated militia. Their ruling was that the Second Amendment did not apply to a shotgun that was under the required 18 inch barrel length. In fact, their decision in Miller specifically states, “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline". And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”2 This clearly includes citizens, and the terms “state militia” or “National Guard” appear nowhere in the Miller decision.

Mr. LeMoult also asserts that most of the shootings are not the work of armed robbers, muggers, drug dealers, or professional hit men, but rather the work of average citizens. I’m not sure how he derives that point, nor how he describes “average citizen”, but studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of homicides are at the hands of those with a past history of crime or criminal connections 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. That’s hardly what I would describe as the “average citizen”. And they would nevertheless become a criminal when they commit a murder anyway. I find no factual support whatsoever for the inference that the presence of a gun would make these people any more or less likely to commit a murder, regardless of criminal background.

Mr. LeMoult also states that, excluding suicides, 51% of homicides were committed on family, friends, neighbors, boyfriends, girlfriends, or close acquaintances. In almost half of the murders committed in the US, the relationship between the offender and the victim is unknown11, so deriving a conclusion here would be mostly guesswork. In cases where the relationship was known, 21.6 percent of victims were slain by family members, 23.1 percent were murdered by strangers, and 55.3 percent were killed by someone with whom they were acquainted12, so in that sense, Mr. LeMoult is correct. But those are not gun homicide statistics. They are the statistics for homicides of any kind, so there is no point to be made here as regards to guns.

Mr. LeMoult also states that only a small fraction of the shootings are done by people in self-defense. The most reliable source of crime data in the United States is the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), mainly because it is the location where crimes are most reliably reported to. Unfortunately, many states and localities don’t report data on justifiable homicides to UCR, because they are not crimes, and in most such cases, charges are never brought, so there is often no official ruling of justifiable homicide to report. Most of the other data available is incomplete. And since more than 90% of the instances where guns are used for defense involve never even firing a shot, Mr. LeMoult is mistaken in implying that his statement is any kind of accurate portrayal of the utility of a firearm in self defense.

Mr. LeMoult states that “Instead of going to a friendly divorce attorney, many angry people turn to their handy firearm in order to clarify their relationships with their mates.” 690 Americans were murdered by their spouse in 200611, but that isn’t broken down by the weapon used. Since divorces ran around 10,600 in 2005, and since around 49% of marriages end in divorce, I doubt Mr. LeMoult has really hit upon a very valid point.

Mr. LeMoult makes several points about the danger to children in households with guns. Only 65 children 1-13 years of age died from accidental gunshots in 200514, and those rates have been steadily declining for years, despite steadily increasing gun ownership. Firearms only account for 2.7% (181) of fatal accidents for children 14 and under16. By contrast, drowning accounts for 1,024 of fatal accidents for children 14 and under16, so your swimming pool is almost six times more dangerous than your firearm.

As for children in states with the highest rates of gun possession in the home being sixteen times more likely to die from accidental gunshot wounds, that simply is not true. Those numbers vary widely. For instance, Wyoming and Alaska have the highest gun ownership rates, but the lowest accidental death rates for children 14 and under, having none whatsoever last year. By contrast, Florida has one of the highest accidental death rates, despite having one of the lowest gun ownership rates14,18. The same scattering of data holds true for homicides of children 14 and under, so the contention about being three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm is also not valid14,18. As for his claims on suicide, he does not associate it with firearms at all. However, the suicide rates are even further skewed, to the point that they almost prove the opposite of his claim14,18. As for Mr. LeMoult’s claim that the top quarter of states with the highest gun ownership had firearm homicide rates 114 percent higher than states within the lowest, that also is simply not true. The 12 states with the highest gun ownership averaged 3.26 homicides per 100,000 citizens in 2005, while the 12 states with the lowest gun ownership averaged 3.0514,18. That’s far from 114 percent.

Mr. LeMoult claims that allowing students on college campuses to have guns would probably result in more mentally deranged students feeling more free to take-out their rages and frustrations on other students, due to being given easy access to firearms. What Mr. LeMoult fails to note is that mentally deranged students already have easy access to firearms. That’s the problem that the proposals are designed to address, the fact that the mentally deranged students are currently the ONLY ones on campus with easy access to firearms. Access is quite easy for anyone who feels no need to obey the laws prohibiting that possession. All these proposals seek to do is to allow some measure of defense against those who are not obeying those laws, and recent events point out that they indeed are not in many cases. The same type of fear mongering was used to fight against concealed carry in many states. And yet, despite the fact that 48 states now have concealed carry laws, none of those horror stories have come to fruition. The simple fact is, mentally deranged students already have the same access to firearms that they would have under those proposals, but unlike the law abiding students, being mentally deranged means that the law is no barrier to them now.

I don’t begrudge anyone their position on these issues, regardless of what that position may be. On the contrary, I applaud Mr. LeMoult for taking the time to champion an issue he obviously feels strongly about. However, when attempting to decide which side of an important issue that you should come down on, that decision should be based on facts rather than on misinterpreted or distorted data. I thank you for your time in allowing me to try to set the record straight in that regard.

1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/Americans-Guns-Danger-Defense.aspx
2. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
3. Elliot, Delbert S. 1998. "Life Threatening Violence Is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention." Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69, no. 4, p. 1085.
4. Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. P. 177
5. Kleck and Bordua (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndBordua.htm), 1983:293
6. Cooney, Mark. 1997. "The decline of elite homicide" Criminology 35:381-407
7. Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994)
8. http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/Reports/Firearms/Part7Criminal.pdf
9. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile07.html
10. http://www.azstarnet.com/murder2000/
11. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html
12. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html
13. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
14. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
15. Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm.
16. National Center for Health Statistics
17. Dr. Edgar A. Suter. 1994. "Guns in the Medical Literature—A Failure of Peer Review," Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, March 1994, p. 134.
18. http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1003599I took care not to use any 'gun organization' references so he couldn't claim I was using biased sources. Anti-gunners like to do that when they can't prove your data wrong.

[Wolfcounsel]

My letter to the editor would have been shorter, but I don't think it's printable anyway.:evilgrin:

[DoctorDoom]

The guy's a classic Brady Bunch zealot. And IAC, it's unlikely that a column in the Xenia Gazatte is going to negatively impact 2A rights.

[garlicguy]

That's a really well-supported and well-written letter, Rhino.

When I get the chance to address the issue in the local Op/Eds, I'll be asking permission to quote from it. Meanwhile, would you mind emailing me a copy that I can print out to read at a local political gathering?

gg

[BarkleUSA]

...and now a :feel good" story...

First to admit Gramma Ruth is very old, her arthritist painful, she can barely get out of bed in the morning. But fortunately her index finger can still muster the strenth to pull the trigger on the 9mm ergonomicaly designed Smith & Wesson Model SW9GVE I gave her on her 79th birthday.

The night Hernando Vasquez broke through her bedroom window to rape a "real American" - having illegaly crossed our border three weeks earlier and already released twice by local law enforcement due to "sanctuary city" policies Hernando was ready for greengo payback.

As the Mexican national entered Ruth's bedroom and shouted (in Spanish) how he wanted to fu%k her - Ruth quietly but deliberately reached for the cold steel of the S&W SW9GVE she kept faithfully under her pillow.

As Hernando came closer, loosened his belt and began to masturbate, Ruth grasped the cold steel confidently and released the safety with her thumb as I had taught her to do a thousand times.

Hernando shouted some spanish profanities proclaiming the South West United States for Mexico and jumped into Ruth's bed she purposely thrust the cold steal barrel to Hernando's groin area and managed to squeeze off five shots in quick succesion.

Hernando, as much in dissbelief as dumbfounded over the torrent of warm blood comming from what had been his latino manhood seemed shocked as Ruth then held the S&W SW9GVE barrel tight against his left kneee cap, squeased off two shots, then against his right knee, two more shots.

Before Heranado could manage a strangle hold on Granma Ruth's chicken neck she had managed to put a couple of rounds through each of his elbows, rendering his massive gang-land tatooed arms useless.

(just so you know, the S&W SW9GVE holds 18 rounds and one chambered)

As Hernando shouted out something praising McCain's open border policies, Ruth shut him up for good with three rounds through the larynx, proclaiming "I don't need to hear that shit in my home, this is MY country God Damnit!"

Without wasting too much time, Granma Ruth placed the barrel to Hernando's forehead, between his eyes, and quickly fired off the remaining two rounds declaring I'm here just waiting for your friends to join you!

She spent the rest of the night listening to Let Freedom Ring and put her wood chipper to good use in the morning. When I saw Ruth last Wednesday, she did say she was getting low on ammo - so I made a run to the gun shop. 'nuff said...

[Rhino]

Lo and behold, they say they're going to print my letter on Saturday.

[Rhino]

That's a really well-supported and well-written letter, Rhino.

When I get the chance to address the issue in the local Op/Eds, I'll be asking permission to quote from it. Meanwhile, would you mind emailing me a copy that I can print out to read at a local political gathering?

ggE-mail sent.

[Beowulf]

Very VERY well written email, Rhino. I think that is HOF material!
I'm betting that Mr. LeMoult is rubbing his hiney right now!!

[Rhino]

Thanks. I've done some of that kind of stuff before, and have even had a few published, but it's been a long time. I would have preferred to refine this one, but newspapers want responses to their articles to appear as quickly as possible after the original article. They usually reject any response that does not come in quickly.

[Timberwolf]

One of my favorites on the 2nd - The Unabridged Second Amendment (http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444)

A fantastic read...

[DesertFox]

Good job, Rhino.

[buckeyepete]

Hey Rhino, BuckeyeMike and I used to deliver the Xenia Gazette, years and years ago. We had routes in the Beavercreek area when it was mostly farm area. Now it's a city. Wanda's Mom and family still live there.

Good article. I'll have the OL' Woman send me a copy. Thanks for the memories.

Pete:D

[garlicguy]

E-mail sent.

Thanks. I plan to read it aloud at Monday's and Wednesday's Republican meetings.

[MaxLoad]

Fantastic letter Rhino. Ya make me proud to know ya!
:claps:

[ThomasMore]

Rhino, that was a tour de force. Truly an outstanding job!