On an average day in this country, two or three people die and approximately 30 are injured from accidental firearms shootings; about fifty more die by suicide with a gun and nearly 40 are murdered with guns.

These sobering statistics came back to me when I read Glenn Reynolds’ disturbing op-ed encouraging government mandates that people have guns in their homes. I was angry and alarmed that some might take these proposals, and the flawed statistics on which they rely, seriously.

I’m glad that the people of Kennesaw, Georgia don’t suffer from much crime, as Mr. Reynolds writes. But they didn’t before the town passed their 1982 ordinance requiring gun ownership, either – an ordinance the town’s leaders admit was symbolic and has never been enforced. Mr. Reynolds says crime dropped after the law passed, but a study by David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Colin Loftin, published in the journal Sociology and Social Research¹ argues that Kennesaw’s crime statistics show that rather than a decrease, there was a statistically insignificant increase in crime afterward. On the other hand, these same researchers found that Morton Grove, Illinois had a “large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports” after that city banned handguns.

Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.

Here are some additional facts: After guns were mandated in Kennesaw, a gun was sold at a gun show there and was used to shoot New York City Police Officer Tanagiot Benekos in 1998. At least five other guns purchased at Kennesaw gun shows have been recovered in New York City crimes, including a murder and an attempted murder.

Mr. Reynolds sprinkled his essay with other highly questionable data. He wrote about “the United States having a lower proportion of “hot” burglaries — break-ins where the burglars know the home to be occupied — than countries with restrictive gun laws.” He apparently took this claim from a questionable study which compared just one city to three countries, and used different victimization surveys in different time periods. According to David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, “no study is referenced that compares a large sample of cities, states or nations” on this issue.

Hemenway, in his book Private Guns, Public Health (University of Michigan Press, 2004) goes on to mention “a more reliable study” using Uniform Crime Reports for all 50 U.S. states and data from the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey for 330,000 households, which found that “U.S. counties and states with more guns have higher rates of burglary and higher per capita rates of ‘hot burglary’” and that “[h]omes with firearm collections are considered prime targets for burglars.”

Have small towns with little crime seen a significant reduction in crime if they mandate guns in the home? No. And government should show more respect for the right we all have to choose not to have a gun in our home.

Do burglars clearly avoid houses where there are guns? No. And since the fear-mongering of the gun pushers makes guns so popular and easy to fence, I’m sure most burglars are happy to steal them whenever they can.

Did guns help public safety in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? If you ask the police, they’ll say no – abandoned guns and armed criminals made an already difficult rescue job even more terrifying.

As long as someone is not a minor, a convicted felon, subject to a domestic violence restraining order or otherwise a “prohibited purchaser” and wants to have a gun for sport, for collecting or personal protection, he or she is welcome to have one. They should realize, however, that this gun, according to Hemenway, “increases the risk of murder for family members” as well as “the risk of suicide and unintentional firearm injury.” Particularly if there are young children in the home, I would urge gun owners to take precautions, and lock the gun up in a safe – even though some gun pushers seem to be against that, too.

There are common sense things we can do to help make our communities safer, including cracking down on rogue gun dealers, requiring background checks on all gun sales, and limiting bulk sales of guns. The arguments of those who push guns and try to force more of these dangerous, unregulated weapons into our homes should be viewed with skepticism.

References:

1. McDowall, D., B. Wiersema, and C. Loftin (1989). “Did mandatory firearm ownership in Kennesaw really prevent burglaries?” Sociology and Sociological Research, 74: 48-51.

(Note to readers: this blog entry, as well as past blog entrees, are co-posted on www.huffingtonpost.com)

Over the holidays I had the opportunity to read David Hemenway’s excellent book “Private Guns, Public Health,” published by the University of Michigan Press in 2004. After I started as President of the Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Gun Violence six months ago, this book was recommended highly as one of the best summaries of the issue of gun violence in the United States. After meeting with Dr. Hemenway at his office at the Harvard School of Public Health last October, I was even more interested in reading this book.

Hemenway starts by making it clear that taking a “public health” approach to the issue of gun violence is no more “anti-gun” than efforts to deal with other areas of injury are “anti-stairs, anti-swimming pools, [or] anti-cars.” He also makes it clear that “[p]ublic health is not anti-gun owner.” The goal of Hemenway’s book is “injury prevention” by focusing on the “public health effects of firearms.”

He “summarizes the scientific literature on the public health effects of firearm availability and firearm policies” and “emphasizes the need for better data.” An Appendix outlines the methodology needed in analyzing this issue, and raises serious questions about the fairness and accuracy of “one widely cited gun proponent, John Lott, Jr.”
A “public health” approach is important to the gun violence debate because it “emphasizes prevention rather than fault-finding, blame, or revenge.” It also focuses on all firearm injuries, including accidents and self-inflicted injuries.

The statistics are sobering: every day in this country, two or three people die from accidental firearms shootings and some thirty are injured; about fifty die each day by suicide with a gun; and, between 1991 and 2000, about forty Americans were murdered with guns on an average day. Hemenway points out that “more guns in a community lead to more homicide” and that a gun in homes “increases the risk of murder for family members” as well as “the risk of suicide and unintentional firearm injury.”

Hemenway goes on the discuss self-defense (”No credible evidence exists for a general deterrent effect of firearms”); location (”Based on all available evidence, arming citizens to reduce crime – in the home, in schools, or on the streets – seems likely to increase rather than reduce the level of lethal violence”); demography (”Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying… [and] women are more likely to die violent deaths…”); supply (”the safety of guns is less regulated than virtually any other commodity…New laws are needed to reduce the flow of guns to criminals through the secondary market”); and policy background, policy lessons, and policy actions (”We should no longer accept our high levels of lethal violence as an inevitable by-product of a free American society.”)

The “public health” approach advanced by Hemenway recognizes that efforts to prevent gun violence should be based on good facts with a focus on the manufacturers, distribution, and environment of product use as well as the individual product users. As Hemenway states in his “Conclusion” chapter:

The public health approach is not about banning guns. It is about creating policies that will prevent violence and injuries.

Hemenway calls for action at the federal level: licensing of gun owners and registration of hand guns; one-gun-per-month laws to reduce gunrunning; all gun transfers to go through licensed dealers with background checks; greater scrutiny of licensed dealers; and a federal agency (similar to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) with the power to regulate firearms as a consumer product.

If more of the debate and discussion about guns and gun violence were handled with the clear, studious, and fact-based approach of David Hemenway, we’d be a lot more likely to reach agreement on common-sense steps to make all our communities safer. If you haven’t done so already, read “Private Guns, Public Health” and use it as a starting point in considering the issue of gun violence prevention.

(Note to readers: this blog entry, as well as past blog entrees, are co-posted on www.huffingtonpost.com)