From: [n--nc--b] at [rainbo.enet.dec.com] (client surfer)
Newsgroups: info.firearms.politics
Subject: Kellerman vs Kleck: Thurs night  ABC's  Prime Time Live
Date: 9 Nov 93 21:34:26 GMT


	Just got off the phone with a ABC news producer from 
	Prime Time Live.

	This Thursday night, one of their segments focuses on
	self-defense and guns (in general).  They are interviewing
	Kellerman, of the NEJM "studies", and also Gary Kleck.

	The AWARE phone was called today asking if we knew of a person who
	- had a gun but couldn't get to it in time
	- had a gun but had it taken away
	- had a gun but couldn't manage to pull the trigger

	I called her and told her those were classic lines that police
	chiefs use in trying to disuade women from getting handgun
	permits, explained the difference between how police carry
	(openly, everyone knows where to grab) vs civilian carry
	(concealed, with all the element of surprise).   I told her about
	Lyn Bates study trying to find a person with training who has had a 
	gun taken away from her, and she hasn't been able to find such
	a person in over a year. The producer found that very interesting
	going to try to get ahold of Lyn by tomorrow.

	She told me of a story about a nurse in Florida who foiled
	an assault using her handgun, and said that they weren't just
	looking for reasons not to get a gun.

	I asked if they had encountered the NEJM study.  She said yes,
	and as a matter of fact they interviewed Kellerman.  I immediately
	explained why his conclusions are invalid (because they attempt
	to evaluate the usefulness of a gun in self-defense based on
	how many criminals get *killed*, when usually the criminal gets
	scared away, JUST LIKE THE STORY ABOUT THE NURSE IN FLORIDA THEY 
	ARE SHOWING...).    She also said something about how most 
	burglaries happen when people are away [so their guns are no good],  
	and I said that burglary
	by definition is against property, and why didn't the study
	talk about robbery, assault, rape, etc...    
	(what study was she referring to here??)
	
	I also mentioned that Kellerman's studies are funded by 
	organizations with political agendas, and that he's trying to 
	ascribe morality to an object, unwise in general.   

	Those were all the consise digs I could think of for the moment.

	She said "I wish I had heard of you earlier; you are so much more
	convincing than the only person we could find to opposed Kellerman."
	I said, "Who was that?"
	She said, "someone named Kleck".   (!!)
	She said that he wasn't very credible. I asked why was he not
	credible.  I don't remember what she said; nothing really concrete.

	How frustrating!  I would have loved to debate Kellerman! 
	(via 90 degree angles of arguments for greatest effectiveness)

					nancy b.