Received: from mailhost.NRA.org by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA09823; Wed, 14 May 1997 11:24:36 -0600
Received: from wbg-va2-11.ix.netcom.com (wbg-va2-11.ix.netcom.com [205.184.195.75]) by mailhost.NRA.org (8.6.11/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA25194 for <dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us>; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:16:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3379F7C4.CEE@nra.org>
Reply-To: groots@NRA.org
Organization: NRA Institute for Legislative Action
> Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review
>
> (Copyright 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia - Permission to distribute with full attribution granted)
>
> by Edgar A. Suter MD
> National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
>
> 5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 140
>
> San Ramon CA 94583-5405 USA
>
> Abstract
>
>
>
> Introduction
>
>
>
>
>
> Webster et al.6,7 use powerful images of children in carefully crafted comparisons to mislead us. Mentioning "Gunshot wounds are the third most common cause of injury deaths among children aged 10 to 14 years..." assiduously avoids noting that only the first leading cause of death amongst children, motor vehicle accidents , is horrific. [See Graph 5: "Children's Accidental Deaths"]
>
> How do guns compare with other causes of death? [See Graph 6: "Actual Causes of Death"] The 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study, a non-psychiatric inpatient sample from New York state, suggests that doctors' negligence kills annually three to five times as many Americans as guns, 100,000 to 150,000 per year. With sad irony it has become vogue for medical politicians to claim that guns, rather than medical negligence, have become a "public health emergency." [See Graph 7: "Estimated Annual US Dea
>
>
>
>
>
> The benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected - not the burglar body count...
>
> the "43 times"╩fallacy
>
> Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.
>
> methodological and conceptual errors:
>
> * prejudicially truncated data
>
> * non sequitur logic
>
> * correct methodology described, but not used, by the authors
>
> * repeated the harshly criticized methodology of Rushforth from a decade earlier
>
> * deceptively understated the protective benefits of guns
>
> To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists often claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." This is Kellermann and Reay's flawed risk-benefit ratio for gun ownership,25 heavily criticized for its deceptive approach and its non sequitur logic.10,26,27 Clouding the public debate, this fallacy is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.
>
> 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,10 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.
>
> Interestingly, the authors themselves described ,but did not use , the correct methodology. They acknowledged that a true risk-benefit consideration of guns in the home should (but did not in their "calculations") include "cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed...."25
>
> Kellermann and Reay had repeated the harshly criticized folly of Rushforth28 from a decade earlier. In 1976 Bruce-Biggs criticized Rushforth noting that the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved and the property protected, not the burglar body count.29 Kellermann and Reay would have done well to heed that simple caveat. Objective analysis, even by their own standards, shows the "more likely to kill a family member than intruder" comparison to be deceptively appealing, though only a spe
>
>
>
> At his presentation to the October 17, 1993 Handgun Epidemic Lowering Program conference, Kellermann emotionally admitted his anti-gun bias, a bias evident in the pattern of Kellermann's "research."
>
> The "43 times" fallacy becomes the "2.7 times" fallacy...
>
> Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.
>
> methodological and conceptual errors:
>
> * used only one logistic regression model to describe multiple socially distinct populations
>
> * psychosocially, economically, and ethnically unrepresentative study populations
>
> * study populations, compared to general population, over-represented serious social dysfunction and financial instability, factors that would expectedly increase risks of homicide
>
> * unrepresentative nature of dysfunctional study populations prevents generalizing results to population at large
>
> * when properly used, an "odds ratio" only estimates relative risk of study and control populations - misleading because the ratio gives no estimate of actual or baseline risk
>
> * one week after publication of this article, during his presentation to a gun prohibition advocacy group, H.E.L.P. Conference (Chicago, October 18, 1993), the lead author emotionally admitted his anti-gun bias, and
>
> similar to Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.:
>
> * ignored criticisms of 1986 methodology, so, for the second time, repeated the harshly criticized methodology of Rushforth from 1976
>
> * non sequitur logic
>
> * In 1986, correct methodology described, but never used, by the lead author
>
> * failed to consider the protective benefits of guns
>
> Kellermann and his co-authors have persisted in their discredited methodology. In a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article,32Kellermann et al. once again attempted to prove that guns in the home are a significant risk.
>
>
>
> The unrepresentative nature of the case and control groups undercut the authors' attempts to generalize from this study to the nation at large. The results cannot even be generalized to the counties studied because both the case and control groups did not even represent the ethnic or socioeconomic diversity of the counties studied. With so many complex variables, the authors should have used multiple logistic regression models, but, with their a priori bias, used only one logistic regression mod
>
> Interestingly, according to the authors' own data, guns were next to last in importance of the "risk factors" studied. Alcohol, living alone, family violence, and renting one's home held more risk than guns according to the authors' calculations, yet the most important risks were barely mentioned in the publicity or the authors' discussion. [See Graph╩8: - "Kellermann's Homicide Odds Ratios"] It appears that the authors were more concerned about generating a headline-grabbing "factoid," exaggera
>
> "Proving" a foregone conclusion...
>
> Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the Home in Relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-72.
>
> methodological and conceptual errors:
>
> * an "adjustment" to eliminate suicide outside the home for the stated purpose of exaggerating the focus on guns
>
> * ignored the vast body of data on suicide method substitution
>
> * the authors virtually ignored their own data showing that factors, such as psychotropic medications, drug abuse, living alone, and hospitalization for alcoholism, have much higher correlations with suicide than guns
>
> * failed to address the important social and ethical dilemma - how to reduce overall suicide rates
>
> * ignored the role of failing health in the suicide of the elderly
>
> In another effort to prove that guns in the home are a significant risk, Kellermann and his co-authors purported to examine certain correlates of suicide.33 Though the authors' own data showed higher correlations between suicide and psychotropic medications, drug abuse, living alone, and hospitalization for alcoholism, the article focused on guns. [See Graph╩9: - "Kellermann's Suicide Odds Ratios"]
>
> The authors' "adjustment" - their word - that eliminated the 30% of suicides outside the victim's home intentionally skewed the data towards their foregone conclusion. The authors candidly acknowledged their bias - "Our study was restricted to suicides in the victim's home because a previous study has indicated that most suicides committed with guns occur there..." [emphasis added].
>
>
>
> Guns are often portrayed as uniquely lethal as tools of suicide, yet, amongst tools of suicide, guns are neither uniquely available, uniquely lethal, nor causal of suicide.10 [See Graph 11: "Suicide Method Lethality"] The authors' preoccupation with guns bypasses the real social dilemma, reducing the total suicide rate. Changing merely the method of death is an inadequate response to a grave social problem. Is suicide from hanging or auto exhaust so much more "politically correct" that research,
>
> Where is lawful self-defense "murder"?
>
> Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5.
>
> methodological and conceptual errors:
>
> * most women kill in defense of themselves and their children. In these common circumstances, lawful self-defense by women against their attackers is not "murder" in any jurisdiction
>
> * the authors' discussion focused almost entirely on guns though the data on knives and other weapons are virtually identical
>
> * the authors failed to note that during the study period the domestic homicide rate nearly halved
>
> * provided no primary research, instead provides largely faulty analysis of FBI Uniform Crime Reports data
>
> * though purporting to assess an aspect of risk, the authors failed to analyze the protective uses of guns - lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs saved, and property protected - no true risk-benefit analysis
>
> * ignored data that suggest guns are actually the safest and most efficacious means of resisting assault, rape, and even non-violent crime
>
> * offered no new insights or solutions to the problem of domestic abuse
>
>
>
> Would it be more "politically correct" if women or children were killed by their attackers - the common outcome when women do not defend themselves and their children with guns? Should women, children, the elderly, the physically challenged, or anyone rely on riskier or less effective means of self-protection? Or... should innocent victims defend themselves with the safest and most effective means of defense until such time as prevention strategies become significantly more effective?
>
>
>
>
>
> The most meaningful conclusion from this study, the conclusion missed by Kellermann and Mercy, is the tremendous restraint shown by women, that they kill so few of their contemptible abusers. Interestingly, during the study period of this article, 1976-87, the domestic homicide rate fell from 2.4 to 1.4 per 100,000 39,40 and the number of teen and child gun accident fatalities fell from 530 to 280 41 - all this while increasing numbers of guns were in the hands of US citizens. It is also worth n
>
>
>
> Why are the Black and Hispanic homicide rates so high in Seattle?
>
> Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62.
>
> methodological and conceptual errors:
>
> * attempted a simplistic single-cause interpretation of differences observed in demographically dissimilar cities and cultures
>
> * purported to evaluate the efficacy of Canadian gun control without evaluating the situation before the law
>
> * the Vancouver homicide rate increased 25% after the institution of the 1977 Canadian law
>
> * failed to acknowledge that, except for Blacks and Hispanics, homicide rates were lower in the US than in Canada
>
> Sloan, Kellermann, and their co-authors attempted to prove that Canada's gun laws caused low rates of violence.42 In their study of Vancouver, the authors failed to compare homicide rates before and after the law. As Blackman noted,43 they had ignored or overlooked that Vancouver had 26% more homicides after the Canadian gun ban, an observation that should warrant scientific exploration and generate a healthy skepticism of the authors' foregone conclusions. Blackman's critique and analogy were s
>
> "... The Vancouver-Seattle 'study' is the equivalent of testing an experimental drug to control hypertension by finding two ordinary-looking, middle class white men, one 25 years old and the other 40, and without first taking their vital signs, administering the experimental drug to the 25-year-old while giving the 40-year-old a placebo, then taking their blood pressure and, on finding the younger man to have a lower blood pressure, announcing in a 'special article' a new medical breakthrough. I
>
> Since its publication this article on gun control is among those most frequently cited, though this small scale (two cities) study has been thoroughly debunked by three large scale (national and multi-national) studies.44,45,46 Kellermann and Sloan's biased interpretation of their data, asserting that guns are to blame for crime, assaults, and homicide, is even refuted by their own statistics.
>
>
>
> Could guns have some special evil influence over Blacks and Hispanics, but not others? Hardly! The authors failed to identify the inescapable truth. The roots of inner-city violence lie in the disruption of the family, the breakdown of society, desperate and demoralized poverty, promotion of violence by the media,47,48 the profit of the drug trade, the pathology of substance abuse, child abuse, disrespect for authority, and racism - not in gun ownership.
>
>
>
> Foretelling the future - gun prohibitionists and criminals share a crystal ball...
>
> Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, and Cottey TJ. Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia. N. Engl J Med 1991; 325:1615-20.
>
> methodological and conceptual errors:
>
> * the apparent, temporary, and minuscule homicide drop occurred 2 years before the Washington DC law took effect
>
> * the "interrupted time series" methodology as used by Loftin et al. has been invalidated
>
> * the study used raw numbers rather than population-corrected rates - not correcting for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the study period or for the 25% increase in the control population - exaggerating the authors' misinterpretations
>
> * the study conveniently stopped as Washington, DC's overall homicide rate skyrocketed to 8 times the national average and the Black, male, teen homicide rate skyrocketed to 22 times the national average
>
> * used a drastically dissimilar demographic group as control
>
> * the authors virtually failed to discuss the role of complicating factors such as the crack cocaine trade and criminal justice operations during the study period
>
> Loftin et al. attempted to show that Washington, DC's 1976 ban on new gun sales decreased murder.49 Loftin and his co-authors, using tax money, produced "research" with several negating flaws that were ignored or overlooked by "peer review" and the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine -perhaps a corollary of the editor's no-data-are-needed2 policy.
>
> Not only has the "interrupted time series" methodology as used by Loftin et al. has been invalidated,50 but the temporary and minuscule homicide drop began during 1974, 2 years before the gun law - How could the law, even before its proposal, be responsible for the drop? Since homicidal maniacs and criminals could not clairvoyantly anticipate the law, other causalities should have been considered. The authors, however, side-stepped the question and dismissed non-gun causalities without any analy
>
> The study conveniently stopped as the Washington, DC homicide rate skyrocketed. If the gun freeze law, which has not changed, were responsible for the homicide drop, we would expect the "drop" to continue. If the "guns-cause-murder" theory is valid and if the gun freeze were effective, as "grandfathered" guns leave circulation (owner moves, dies, guns become unserviceable, etc.), the homicide rate should drop steadily. Quite the opposite is observed. The 1976 Washington, DC homicide rate before
>
> Justifiable and excusable homicides, including those by police officers, were treated the same as murders and were not excluded from the study. The study used raw numbers rather than population-corrected rates. This did not correct for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the study period or for the 25% increase in the control population - exaggerating the authors' misinterpretation. The study used the adjacent suburbs as a control group, an area with demographics drastically dif
>
> The authors examined and allowed only a single cause interpretation - guns are to blame. They offhandedly discarded any other possible explanation. They specifically ignored the role of the crack cocaine trade, FBI stolen property and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms illegal weapon sting operations in progress during the study, and measures instituted during the study period that improved the efficiency of the Washington DC court system. They generally ignored the role of poverty and myri
>
> Homicide has declined for every segment of American society except teenage and young adult inner-city residents. The Black teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000,53 yet less than 7 per 100,000 for rural, middle-aged white men,54 the US group for whom gun ownership has the highest prevalence.10 If the "guns-cause-violence" theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase" source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, not have a murder rate comparable to
>
> Even in their responses to criticism,55 the authors' intransigent bias is evident. Their position? If a drop in murder is discovered (or statistically contrived), gun control must receive the credit, but when attention was drawn to the failures of gun control and their study design, the skyrocketing murder rate must be credited to "other causes." Shall we examine gun control as science or religion? It appears that the faith of true believers is unshakable heedless of data and the scientific meth
>
> Aberrant data, illogical analysis, weak analogies, and gross exaggerations are not a basis for public policy...
>
> Koop CE and Lundberg GD. "Violence in America: A Public Health Emergency." JAMA. 1992; 267: 3075-76.
>
> methodological and conceptual errors:
>
> * claimed 1 million US gun homicides per year - a 35-fold exaggeration
>
> * lumped gun accidents, homicides, and suicide in a comparison with automobile accidents alone
>
> * used data from 2 exceptional states, rather than data from the 48 states where gun deaths were falling faster than auto deaths
>
> * the authors' weak analogy concluded that registration and licensing of guns would decrease deaths, though offering no data to show that registration and licensing of automobiles resulted in such a decrease
>
> * postulated that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are also appropriate to an inalienable human right to self-preservation(gun ownership).
>
> * dismissed - without analysis or authority - the constitutional and natural rights to gun ownership
>
> * though the authors promote a public health model of gun ownership, the "bullet as pathogen" vogue, guns meet none of Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity
>
> An editorial by Koop and Lundberg56 promoting the guns and autos analogy demonstrated deceptions common amongst prohibitionists - the inflammatory use of aberrant and sculpted data to reach illogical conclusions in the promotion of harmful and unconstitutional policy. The authors attempted to draw a comparison between motor vehicle accidental deaths with all gun deaths.
>
> aberrant and sculpted data
>
> "One million US inhabitants die prematurely each year as the result of intentional homicide or suicide" is a 35-fold exaggeration57 Whether carelessness or prevarication, such a gross distortion evokes, at best, questions regarding competence in this field.
>
> It is doubtful that the authors would lump deaths from surgery, knife attacks, and hara kiri to contrive some inference about knives, but to claim that Louisiana and Texas firearms deaths exceed motor vehicle accidents,58 it was necessary to total firearm accidents, homicides, and suicides. Koop and Lundberg, as promoters of the fashionable "public health model" of gun violence, should know that the root causes and, hence, prevention strategies are very different for accidents, homicides, and
>
> In the forty-eight other states the converse is noted, firearms accidents (and most other accidents) fell 50% faster than motor vehicle accidents - between 1980 and 1990, a 33% rate drop nationally for guns compared to a 21% drop for motor vehicles.59 Should we base public policy on contrivances and exceptions?
>
> illogical conclusions
>
> Koop and Lundberg referenced a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report58 that claimed seven reasons for the fall in motor vehicle accidents - better cars, better roads, passive safety devices, children's car seats, aggressive drunk driving enforcement, lower speed limits, and motorcycle helmets - but did not claim licensing or registration of cars was responsible for the fall. It is by a fervent act of faith, rather than one of science or logic, that Koop and Lundberg proposed their scheme.
>
>
>
> harmful and unconstitutional nostrums
>
> Crime and homicide rates are highest in jurisdictions, such as Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, and California, where the most restrictive gun licensing, registration, and prohibition schemes exist. Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3
>
>
>
> The new prohibition - enforceability and constitutionality
>
> The deceptions in the medical literature are not restricted to scientific issues. The insurmountable practical and constitutional impediments to gun bans are either offhandedly or deceptively60 discounted. Neither practical matters, such as the massive expense and civil rights violations necessary to enforce gun bans,61 nor historical matters, such as the racist and oppressive roots of gun control,62,63,64,65,66 are discussed by medical politicians who advocate gun bans.
>
> Besides unenforceability, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an insurmountable impediment to gun bans. Gun prohibitionists mistakenly predicate that controls appropriate to a privilege, driving, are appropriate to an inherent, irrevocable, and constitutionally protected right. While certain state and federal gun controls may be constitutional, gun prohibitions are clearly unconstitutional. Gun controls may not be so onerous as to regulate the right into meaningless, virtual nonexistence.
>
> Failure to recognize that the National Guard is a component of the US Army and not equivalent to the Second Amendment's "militia"67 has allowed prohibition advocates to misconstrue the protections guaranteed to individual citizens by the Second Amendment. Considerable legal scholarship also finds protection of gun civil rights in "unenumerated rights" protected by the Ninth Amendment,68 the natural right to self-protection,69 and in the "privileges, immunities, equal protection" and "due proc
>
> Despite plausible misinterpretations by physicians72 and Handgun Control Inc.73 and other prohibitionist74 attorneys about the function and definition of "militia,"
>
> "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age... and under 45 years of age."75
>
>
>
> The US Supreme Court has rejected such convoluted logic. In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez,80 a Fourth Amendment case holding that the warrant requirement is inapplicable to the search of a home in a foreign country, the Supreme Court noted that "the people" who have the right to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to be secure in their papers and effects are one and the same "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms.
>
>
>
> These important civil rights matters will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming article.
>
> Conclusions
>
> Utopia is not one of the available solutions to violence in our society. Only incremental improvements are attainable through repeal of victim disarmament laws and through implementation of effectual, affordable measures. Objective assessment of the risks and benefits of various proposals will assist development of rational and effectual public policy. Hysterical, ineffectual, unconstitutional, and merely symbolic measures only squander time, money, and energy that are better devoted to effectua
>
> The author hopes that sufficient data and analysis have been provided so that the reader questions common, but erroneous, assumptions about guns and gun bans and to generate deserved skepticism of the medical literature on guns and violence.
>
> The responsible use and safe storage of any kind of firearm causes no social ill and leaves no victims. In fact, guns offer positive social benefit in protecting good citizens from vicious predators. The overwhelming preponderance of data we have examined shows that between 25 to 75 lives may be saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Guns also prevent injuries to good people, prevent medical costs from such injuries, and protect billions of dollars of property every year. In view of the ov
>
>
>
> If devotees of the "true faith" of gun prohibition and pacifists who deny we have a right to self defense wish to eschew the safest and most effective tools of self-protection, they are welcome to do so. In this imperfect world their harmful philosophy must not be imposed upon an entire society. In essence, society should adopt a "Pro-Choice"╩approach to self-defense and gun ownership.
>
> Endnotes
>
> 1 Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle over Gun Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992.
>
> 2 Kassirer JP. Correspondence. N Engl J. Med 1992; 326:1159-60.
>
> 3 Kassirer JP. "Guns in the Household." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1117-19.
>
> 4 National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1993.
>
> 5 Schwab CW. "Violence: America's Uncivil War - Presidential Address, Sixth Scientific Assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma." J Trauma. 1993: 35(5): 657-665.
>
> 6 Webster DW, Wilson MEH, Duggan AK, and Pakula LC. Firearm Injury Prevention Counseling: A Study of Pediatricians' Beliefs and Practices. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 902-7.
>
> 7 Webster DW, Wilson MEH, Duggan AK, and Pakula LC. Parents' Beliefs About Preventing Gun Injuries to Children. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 908-14.
>
> 8 Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1981.
>
> 9 Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986.
>
> 10 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
>
> 11 Kopel DB. The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? New York: Prometheus Press. 1992.
>
> 12 Kopel DB. "Children and Guns: Sensible Solutions." Golden CO: Independence Institute. 1993.
>
> 13 Kopel DB. "Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public Safety." Golden CO: Independence Institute. 1993.
>
> 14 Kates DB. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. 1990.
>
> 15 Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A. "Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick Purdy in the Stockton, California, Schoolyard Shooting of January 17, 1989." Am J Forensic Medicine and Path. 1990; 11(3): 185-90.
>
> 16 Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6.
Received: from mail.xmission.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id PAA10834; Thu, 15 May 1997 15:18:04 -0600
Received: from domo by mail.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.62 #1)
id 0wS7u1-0005BY-00; Thu, 15 May 1997 15:17:33 -0600
Received: from xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2] (admn)
by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1)
id 0wS7tv-0005B8-00; Thu, 15 May 1997 15:17:27 -0600
Received: (from admn@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.5/8.7.5) id PAA26170 for utah-firearms@xmission.com; Thu, 15 May 1997 15:17:20 -0600 (MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: xmission.xmission.com: admn set sender to utahnet!scott.bergeson using -f
Message-ID: <8D7E2B6.01F500644D.uuout@ucs.org>
Organization: Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA 801-281-8770
X-Mailreader: PCBoard Version 15.22
X-Mailer: PCBoard/UUOUT Version 1.20
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-utah-firearms@xmission.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: utah-firearms@mail.xmission.com
Apparently-To: <dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Organization: Militia of Montana
Forwarded message from Australia. Looks like things are starting to get
This must have been where Karen Shepherd got her marching orders.
Anyone know what 'LCAV' stands for?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>I thought since there is so much with the gun control coming up,
>>that this article was very timely........Love Carolina
By Harry V. Martin
Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995
"The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
Gun control is one of the hottest topics of the nineties. There has been a
series of legislation on both the State and Federal level attempting to
control the ownership and sale of guns. There are currently 31 bills in
the State Legislature right now that address the gun control issue.
The debate over gun control centers on the issue of safety, on one side,
and freedom on the other. Public opinion polls show the majority of
Americans now favor some form of gun control. But at the same time the
Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to
bear arms. The increased possession of guns by gangs and criminals
has caused great alarm, some mass killings such as the Stockton School
Yard shootings and the Yseda McDonald's shootings have increased
that alarm.
But in the quest for gun control also comes the erosion of rights. This
erosion is found in a confidential memorandum concerning a White House
brainstorming session over how to control guns over the next five years
and also projections into the next 15 years. The plan, outlined on Dec.
29, 1993, states: "What was only a dream ten years ago can be a reality
as early as this year. After the meeting, the following ideas were the
result of brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control ini-
tiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible
ideas for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we
can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years."
That White House session was held on Friday, December 17, 1993.
The plan outlines how the media is to receive one press release a day to
keep the gun control issue on a high profile with the public. "Many local
news organizations have been very active in keeping the gun control
issue resolutely in view," the report states. The plan is as follows:
1. National licensing of all handgun purchases. This is the top priority.
2. Licenses fors rifle and shotguns.
3. State licenses for ownership of firearms. The license has to be
signed
by three public officials.
4. Reduction of the number of guns to require an Arsenal license.
Ownership
of five guns and 250 rounds of ammunition would be considered a
arsenal.
An arsenal license fee would be at least $300 annually up to $1000.
An
arsenal license would not be permitted in counties with populations of
more than 200,000.
5. Require a Federally approved storage safe for all guns.
6. Inspection license. Mandatory inspection of all safes with an annual
fee.
7. Ban the manufacturing of weapons in counties with a populations of
more
than 200,000.
8. Banning all military style firearms.
9. Banning any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a
machine gun.
10. Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range
or
in transit from one to the other.
11. Banning replacement parts except barrel and trigger group.
12. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.
13. Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms.
14. Eventual ban of handgun possession. A total ban within five years.
15. Banning of any ammo that fits military guns dating back to as far as
1945.
16. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder.
17. Ban on the possession of explosive powders.
18. Banning of high powered ammo or wounding ammo.
19. A national license required for possession of ammunition.
20. Banning or strict licensing of all reloading components.
21. National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
22. Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
23. Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations of less than
200,000.
24. Special licensing of ranges, which also requires each existing or
new
shooting range required to get written permission of all property
owners
within a radius of seven miles.
25. Special Range tax to visitors, requiring the collection of a minimum of
$85 per visit per person.
26. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
27. Banning gun shows.
28. Banning of historical military reenactments.
29. Making unlawful the assembly of more than four armed individuals
who
are not peace officers or military.
30. Begin to curb hunting on all public lands.
31. Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record.
32. Random Police checks for weapons including vehicle stops and
checks at
all levels and in all types of neighborhoods.
The fifteen year plan would call for the following:
1. Banning of all military accouterments including clothing, pouches, gear,
boots, etc.
2. Stricter guidelines for violence in television and movies.
3. The total elimination of arms from the society.
4. Control of dangerous literature.
Handgun license fees are suggested at $50-$75 the first two years,
rising to $150 to $250 annually the following two years, and $550 to
$625 annually from year five through eight. A range license would be
$12,100 a year.
Implementation of these programs the White House conference group
seeks a low-key approach. "Pending issues to be given at the
appropriate time to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility,
implementation and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions
be made public before we can ascertain the current public reaction and
provide the results of these studies to the LCAV attorneys." It adds,
"There are some ideas which are ahead of their time and would only be
feasible through a concerted Public Relations campaign over the period
of years.
A Public Relations campaign includes press releases, press
conferences, direct lobbying and constant pressure via the national
media."
How does this compare with the Second Amendment of the Constitution?
The regulations are not compatible and also violate right of free
assembly, as well. America, faced with violence and bloodshed, is torn
between protecting herself from the criminals and maintaining the right of
free citizens, non-criminals, to bear arms and protect themselves against
the criminal element, or perhaps, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, a
tyrannical government. The debate is just beginning, but rather than wait
for the secret White House plan to gradually filter out into the public, we
felt it was our responsibility to bring it to our readership as a whole so
they can commence their own debate. How far is protection and how
much is Big Brother?
Received: from mail.xmission.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA11358; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:15:16 -0600
Received: from domo by mail.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.62 #1)
id 0wSOkn-0005iD-00; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:17:09 -0600
Received: from xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2] (admn)
by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1)
id 0wSOkk-0005hV-00; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:17:06 -0600
Received: (from admn@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.5/8.7.5) id JAB27245 for utah-firearms@xmission.com; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:16:58 -0600 (MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: xmission.xmission.com: admn set sender to utahnet!scott.bergeson using -f
Message-ID: <8D7F226.01F500646F.uuout@ucs.org>
Organization: Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA 801-281-8770
X-Mailreader: PCBoard Version 15.22
X-Mailer: PCBoard/UUOUT Version 1.20
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-utah-firearms@xmission.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: utah-firearms@mail.xmission.com
Apparently-To: <dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us>
This must have been where Karen Shepherd got her marching orders.
Anyone know what 'LCAV' stands for?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>I thought since there is so much with the gun control coming up,
>>that this article was very timely........Love Carolina
By Harry V. Martin
Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995
"The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
Gun control is one of the hottest topics of the nineties. There has been
a series of legislation on both the State and Federal level attempting
to control the ownership and sale of guns. There are currently 31 bills
in the State Legislature right now that address the gun control issue.
The debate over gun control centers on the issue of safety, on one side,
and freedom on the other. Public opinion polls show the majority of
Americans now favor some form of gun control. But at the same time the
Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to
bear arms. The increased possession of guns by gangs and criminals has
caused great alarm, some mass killings such as the Stockton School Yard
shootings and the Yseda McDonald's shootings have increased that alarm.
But in the quest for gun control also comes the erosion of rights. This
erosion is found in a confidential memorandum concerning a White House
brainstorming session over how to control guns over the next five years
and also projections into the next 15 years. The plan, outlined on Dec.
29, 1993, states: "What was only a dream ten years ago can be a reality
as early as this year. After the meeting, the following ideas were the
result of brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control ini-
tiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible
ideas for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can
achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years."
That White House session was held on Friday, December 17, 1993.
The plan outlines how the media is to receive one press release a day to
keep the gun control issue on a high profile with the public. "Many local
news organizations have been very active in keeping the gun control issue
resolutely in view," the report states. The plan is as follows:
1. National licensing of all handgun purchases. This is the top priority.
2. Licenses fors rifle and shotguns.
3. State licenses for ownership of firearms. The license has to be signed
by three public officials.
4. Reduction of the number of guns to require an Arsenal license. Ownership
of five guns and 250 rounds of ammunition would be considered a arsenal.
An arsenal license fee would be at least $300 annually up to $1000. An
arsenal license would not be permitted in counties with populations of
more than 200,000.
5. Require a Federally approved storage safe for all guns.
6. Inspection license. Mandatory inspection of all safes with an annual fee.
7. Ban the manufacturing of weapons in counties with a populations of more
than 200,000.
8. Banning all military style firearms.
9. Banning any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun.
10. Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range or
in transit from one to the other.
11. Banning replacement parts except barrel and trigger group.
12. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.
13. Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms.
14. Eventual ban of handgun possession. A total ban within five years.
15. Banning of any ammo that fits military guns dating back to as far as 1945.
16. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder.
17. Ban on the possession of explosive powders.
18. Banning of high powered ammo or wounding ammo.
19. A national license required for possession of ammunition.
20. Banning or strict licensing of all reloading components.
21. National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
22. Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
23. Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations of less than 200,000.
24. Special licensing of ranges, which also requires each existing or new
shooting range required to get written permission of all property owners
within a radius of seven miles.
25. Special Range tax to visitors, requiring the collection of a minimum of
$85 per visit per person.
26. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
27. Banning gun shows.
28. Banning of historical military reenactments.
29. Making unlawful the assembly of more than four armed individuals who
are not peace officers or military.
30. Begin to curb hunting on all public lands.
31. Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record.
32. Random Police checks for weapons including vehicle stops and checks at
all levels and in all types of neighborhoods.
The fifteen year plan would call for the following:
1. Banning of all military accouterments including clothing, pouches, gear,
boots, etc.
2. Stricter guidelines for violence in television and movies.
3. The total elimination of arms from the society.
4. Control of dangerous literature.
Handgun license fees are suggested at $50-$75 the first two years, rising
to $150 to $250 annually the following two years, and $550 to $625 annually
from year five through eight. A range license would be $12,100 a year.
Implementation of these programs the White House conference group seeks
a low-key approach. "Pending issues to be given at the appropriate time
to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility, implementation
and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions be made public
before we can ascertain the current public reaction and provide the
results of these studies to the LCAV attorneys." It adds, "There are
some ideas which are ahead of their time and would only be feasible
through a concerted Public Relations campaign over the period of years.
A Public Relations campaign includes press releases, press conferences,
direct lobbying and constant pressure via the national media."
How does this compare with the Second Amendment of the Constitution?
The regulations are not compatible and also violate right of free
assembly, as well. America, faced with violence and bloodshed, is torn
between protecting herself from the criminals and maintaining the right
of free citizens, non-criminals, to bear arms and protect themselves
against the criminal element, or perhaps, as Thomas Jefferson suggested,
a tyrannical government. The debate is just beginning, but rather than
wait for the secret White House plan to gradually filter out into the
public, we felt it was our responsibility to bring it to our readership
as a whole so they can commence their own debate. How far is protection
