The following White Paper is being submitted to the Fresno City Council 
in support of the "Right to Carry" legislation being discussed Tuesday, 
1/17/95. Those familiar with my other publications/testimony will find 
nothing new or surprising, since it is largely a re-compilation of data.

The piece begins with an overview of the benefits of guns and exposure 
of the myths of gun prohibition. The piece then summarizes the data on 
the violence reductive benefits of reforms restoring the rights of people 
to defend themselves _outside_ their homes.

  *************************************************************************
  * Edgar A. Suter, MD                                      [s--t--r] at [crl.com] *
  * Chair, DIRPP        Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy *
  *************************************************************************
---   the lives saved by concealed weapon law reform   ---
Statement of Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
before the Fresno, California City Council
January 18, 1995


The 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study suggested that about 180,000
Americans die every year from physician negligence[1]  - about five times
the number of Americans killed with guns.  Why don't  we conclude that
doctors are a deadly public menace? Because, in balance, doctors save many
more lives than they take and so it is with guns where guns protect 2.5
million lives every year.

Myth #1      "guns are only used for killing"

Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans
use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods -
there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five
lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses
of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives.[2]

Myth #2     "guns are dangerous when used for protection"

US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most
effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer
injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer
than not resisting at all.[3] The myth that "guns are only used for
killing" and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection"
melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist
because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to
question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us
examine the other common myths.

Myth #3      "there is an epidemic of gun violence"

Even their claim of an "epidemic" of violence is false. That claim, like so
many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that
few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data.
Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except
for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug
trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city
contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain
and the other paragons of gun control.[2]

The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty
is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with
no hope of decent job opportunities.[4]

Myth #4      "guns cause violence"

     homicide

For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and,
despite such gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate
in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US
group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged
white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of
the US average.[6]

If the "guns-cause-violence" theory is correct why does Virginia, the
alleged "easy purchase" source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns,
have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide
rate of 80.6?[7 ]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, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The "guns-cause-violence" and "guns
exacerbate violence" theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city
violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun
ownership.

     accidents

National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been
falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an
all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur
annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands of
innocent children."[8]

     suicide

Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in
suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging,
leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in
total suicide rates.[3] People who are intent in killing themselves find
the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically
correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do
nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?

Myth #5      the "Friends and Family" fallacy

It is common for the "public health" advocates of gun bans to claim that
most murders are of "friends and family."  The medical literature includes
many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law
abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger"[9 ]and "most shootings
are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion
that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection."[10]

Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a
minority of homicides,[11]  but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and
domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to
the decedent.  That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them
"friends."  Over three-quarters of murderers have long histories of
violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but also
against their relatives.[12,13,14,15]   Oddly, medical authors have no
difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is
not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of
violence."[16]  The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are
overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted
upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of "friends and
family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was
present "in the home."

Myth #6      "a homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a
family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family
with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's
long-discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a
family member than an intruder."[17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax
dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense
lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved,
the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected
- not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.  Only 0.1% (1 in a
thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the
predator.[3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy,  that only
counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a
thousand-fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only
measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by
police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the
lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and
injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns
for every life lost to a gun.[2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times,"[18] but he
persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot
distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding
more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding
that diet drinks "cause" obesity.

Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism,
drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and
violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal
homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that,
if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for
protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own
studies.

Myth #7      "the costs of gun violence are high"

The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately
$1.5-billion per year[20]- less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual
health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates
of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings"
or "years of productive life lost" - assuming that gangsters, drug dealers,
and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers,
and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of $20-billion or
more in "costs."[20]  One recent study went so far as to claim the "costs"
of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence.[21] 

What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who
strayed into gunfire?  Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted
that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or
their customers.[22,23]  In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a
criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.[23] These active
criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average
economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and
$25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24] Because the
anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of
"costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers"
short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually
represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion
annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns.  Those annual cost
savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns,
because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from
innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and
property protected by guns.

Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a
substantial net benefit to our society.  Other benefits, such as the
feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun
ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research that
suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult (whether by
bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence.
It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good
citizens who are disarmed by gun laws.  As evidenced by jurisdictions with
the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.),
disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm
than good.  Disarming these good citizens costs more - not fewer - lives.

Myth #8      "gun control will keep guns 'off the street' "

Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug
trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws.  No amount
of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor
additional gun laws.

Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their
proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police-state tactics cannot
effectively enforce gun bans.  As evidence, in Communist China, a country
whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns
were confiscated in one month in 1994.[]25

Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good
people who already honor the laws of common decency.  Placing further
impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately
disarm those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the
people who live in the areas of highest risk.  

If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public
policy implications.  Until such time, the data suggest that victim
disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally-competent, law-abiding
citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection -
guns.[26,27]

Brady I and Brady II

The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential
felons"[28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in
the first month of the Brady Law.  Several jurisdictions have reviewed the
preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal[29] of the "success" of
the Brady Law.

The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other
jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those "potential" felons
were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were
innocents whose names were similar to felons.  Misdemeanor traffic
convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to
license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer
tag that labeled the others as "potential" felons.[30]  In transparent
"governmentese," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the
Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of
numbers.  Anecdotally, we can find some effect."[31]

Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about
6.3% of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated
studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions.  A
minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by Brady Law
background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to identify
even one prosecution of those felons.[32 ]  In such circumstance, the
minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all.
The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are
purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market,
stolen guns, or from similar non-retail sources.[28] Since none of Handgun
Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93%
of crime guns, their symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to
reduce crime or violence.

residential gun dealers

The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers,
pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers
are the source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted
by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data
show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all.[33
]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner
Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large number of
low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to FOPA the
BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at
gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun
dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American
gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the
BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does not have the resources
to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reducing the number of gun
dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the
poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership
becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent.

Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or
law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not
more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real
source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the
supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun
stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on
targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important
to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by
presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the
inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the
perpetrators and victims of violence in our society.

Myth #9     "citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection"

Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as
the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a
better safety record than the police.[3] About 11% of police shootings kill
an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent
person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are
loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to
be wounded than the police.

We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the
simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting
themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering
fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true.

"treat cars like guns"

Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model
of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely
applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is
needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property. No
proof of "need" is required for automobile registration or drivers'
licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any
public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and credit" by
other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age
restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and
misuse - that is regulated.

Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no
"arsenal permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle
racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile
manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused by criminals
- in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of crime and
terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they "might"
be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even
though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the
national speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the usual response. So
too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good
Americans every year.

progressive reform

Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile
model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and
enhance public safety.  Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is
possible.  Where state laws have been reformed to license and train good
citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and homicide
have fallen.[11,26,27]   Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns benefit from
such policies because predators cannot determine in advance who is carrying
a concealed weapon.

fear mongering and the gun control lobby

In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self-protection,
the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to
run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn into
murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would collapse,
and that many innocent people would be killed[26,27]  In Florida, the
anti-self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the streets of
"Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State"  ---  but we do not have to rely on
irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or political histrionics.  We
can examine the data.

data, not histrionics

One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed
laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their
homes.[26,27]  In those states crime rates are lower for every category of
crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.[11] Homicide, assault, and
overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape
is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% lower.[11]  The reasonable reform
of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the mayhem prophesied by the
anti-self-defense lobby.  In fact, the data suggest that, providing they
are in the hands of good citizens, more guns "on the street" offer a
considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and
an adjunct to the concept of community policing.

As of 12/31/93, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent
person had been killed or injured in the 6 years post-reform.  Of the
188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%)  were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not
one of those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever.[27]
In opposing reform, fear is often expressed that "everyone would be packing
guns," but, after reform, most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in
no state more than 4%) of qualified citizens.[27]

Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the
observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators
fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they
fear apprehension by police[34] or fear our timid and porous criminal
justice system.  It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by
predators -  predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens,
tourists are unarmed.

Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if
it saves only one lifeI."  There have been matched state pair analyses,
crime trend studies, and California county-by-county research[27]
demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to
carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many
lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives
is truly their motivation.

the right

Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail
to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are
inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there
be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual
right to keep and bear arms.[35] It is specifically the "weapons of war" -
militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second Amendment
was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen
militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the
Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that
right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in
protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically
fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a century for the
Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to
African-Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?

Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and
bear arms, there are Ninth,[36] Tenth,[35] and Fourteenth Amendment,[37] as
well as "natural right"[38] guarantees to self-protection.

Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court
case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five
support the individual right view and only four support the "collective
right only" view[39]  (and three of these four are authored or co-authored
by employees of the antiselfdefense lobby).  One would never guess such a
legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the
right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun
prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their "collective
right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century
"gun control" debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor
any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling.

California and Concealed Weapons

California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the
lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder
and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have
the lowest rates of murder.[27]

It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable
discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of
Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of
that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the
affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In California
few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even though poor
minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence.

Conclusion

The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do
not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police
cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They
can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the
predators.

There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and
crime trend studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens to
protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The
anti-self defense lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will "save
only one life." Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that saves many
lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun control lobby,
if saving lives is really their interest.

Will Stockton base its policy on experience and sound data? or will
Stockton fall prey to misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative
false imagery?[40]

We beg you. Let Stockton's good citizens protect themselves, their loved
ones, and their livelihoods. The ordinance before you costs no money and it
will save many lives.

-- 
Royce Myers          [R--y--e] at [ug.eds.com]