Letter: Facts don't back up opinion on gun rights

This is in response to the column by Susan Paslov published on June 21. I thought it important to write and correct some of the misinformation that was passed off as fact.

Mrs. Paslov quotes a 1989 Danish study which reportedly shows that if guns are not present at the time of an attempted murder the victim is "far more likely to survive." While I was unable to locate the Dutch study in question a more recent study by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz concludes that firearms play a major role in protecting victims from criminals. The Kleck/Gertz study estimates that Americans use guns to protect themselves from criminal attack as much as 2.5 million times per year. Which is three to five times greater than the number of violent crimes committed with guns annually (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, fall 1995). Clearly, it seems logical and intuitive that guns play an important role in providing for individual defense.

In addition, Mrs. Paslov attempts to disprove that guns provide protection in the home by claiming that "guns are 41 times more likely to cause injury to a household member." It appears that Mrs. Paslov is quoting from a flawed study of King County in Washington State produced by Arthur Kellermann. What Mrs. Paslov did not mention is that the Kellermann study demonstrated that 37 out of every 43 firearm related deaths in King County was a result of suicide. With respect to the accidental deaths of family members such events represent less than 2 percent of fatal firearm accidents which works out to be one for every 90,000 defensive firearm uses (Essays on Firearms and Violence, 1995). Further consider that since 1930 the U.S, population has more than doubled with firearms ownership quadrupling yet the annual number of fatal firearms accidents has dropped by 65 percent (National Center for Health Statistics/BATF/Bureau of Census).

As for Mrs. Paslov's assertion that legal scholars "have unanimously rejected the NRA's view" regarding the personal right to bear arms, I would beg to differ. Yes, in 1994 there were 26 law professors who denounced the view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, yet as of 1996 none had published a scholarly article to support their view. As for the quote by Warren Burger ("the NRA has perpetuated a fraud on the American people") the comment was not made in a scholarly legal journal but rather to Parade magazine (Jan. 14,1990). I can provide references to literally dozens of recently published Law Review articles affirming that the right to bear arms is in fact an individual right.

Despite Mrs. Paslov's assertion that no federal court has upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right, there are recent rulings that make the case. Consider U.S. vs. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) in which the Supreme Court wrote "The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide certain rights and powers reserved to 'the people'." Further in U.S. v Emerson (1999) District Judge Sam Cummings wrote, "A textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms." While I am not a lawyer, it seems that Mrs. Paslov once again parroted poorly researched anti-gun catch phrases at the expense of her own credibility.

Finally to say of the NRA that "they literally quote only half of its wording (Second Amendment) in their literature" is a gross and unfair misrepresentation. The materials that I have come across from the NRA can attest to the fact that they quote the Amendment in its entirety. It appears that Mrs. Paslov prefers to demonize individuals and organizations when she is unable to locate facts to her liking.

I trust that when it comes to evaluating the issue of rights and responsibilities of citizenship the public will choose their sources of information carefully lest they be led down the path of deception.

TIM HOPE

Carson City