Thank you, Ellis Bee, for supplying me with more ammunition to continue our editorial “shoot-out” (forgive my terminology) about the sense of owning and carrying concealed, loaded handguns just in case a crazy person shooting to kill might happen upon one's workplace.

First, Mr. Bee misquoted me in his letter to the editor last week. My original letter referred to the fact that the number of people who are killed by crazy people with guns is a fraction of the number killed accidentally by “normal” people. In other words, you are more likely to die from an accidental shooting than from a crazy person's bullet. In fact, research indicates that the use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases your risk of injury and death.

Now to debunk the NRA-propagated myth that “firearms are used by lawful citizens to prevent crimes and save lives 2.5 million times a year”: A paper by Dr. David Hemenway in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology concludes that the survey methodology used by Kleck and Gertz, who published this estimate, was severely flawed and that their estimate is highly exaggerated. If the same methodology were used on a Washington Post survey about belief in extraterrestrials, it would mean that more than a million Americans have met space aliens.

Some other down-to-earth facts to consider (e-mail me for sources):

Most homicides do not occur as the result of an attack by a stranger, crazy or not, but stem from an argument between people who know each other and are often related.

If you own a gun, you're more likely to have it stolen by a criminal than to use it to protect yourself or your property.

More gun deaths in America are the result of suicide (20,540 for 1994) than from murder (15,456 for 1994). Only about 10 percent of suicides by firearms are committed with firearms purchased specifically for the act.

For every time a citizen used a firearm in 1995 in a justifiable homicide, 131 lives were ended in firearm murders, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

It's true that some people's lives have been protected by citizens' use of firearms in self-defense. But if you want to talk about things that carry risk while also having value, many medications which may be helpful to some are not available to consumers because they pose a high health risk to others.

Would you say that people's rights are violated when they're denied access to medicines that are sure to help some, but are also likely to hurt many more? Even legal medicines require a prescription before their purchase from a trained, licensed third party to prevent their misuse. (By the way, Mr. Bee, we need food to live and cars for transportation. Handguns are not needed in everyday life and are, in fact, useful only for the same reason they're dangerous: They are lethal weapons.)

I'm grateful that Mr. Bee recognizes that my intentions are well meaning. In the same way, I'm sure he truly believes he is doing the right thing to protect his family and community by carrying a handgun.

Responsible gun-owners must acknowledge, however, not only the irrefutable risks to themselves and others caused by gun-ownership, but also the danger of falsely proclaiming that a gun-carrying society is a safe society. You can bet that gun manufacturers (whose intentions are most certainly not so pure) put their money behind this message and hope this mentality continues to increase business in firearm and ammunition sales ($2 billion worth in 1994, wholesale.)

I, unfortunately, will receive nothing for speaking out on this matter, except perhaps some potshots from Fayette County's pro-gun majority! Well, I suppose if there is to be a shoot-out, I'd much rather it be on editorial pages than with guns. The people in my sights are the ones who may end up choosing to put down their weapons, making this society truly safer for all.

Melissa Hamilton
Peachtree City
hamlton@mindspring.com

Back to Opinion Page | Back to the top of the page