Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 04:12:03 -0400 From: [E--rS--r] at [aol.com] To: Multiple recipients of list <[n--b--n] at [mainstream.net]> Subject: Right to Self-Defense testimony Testimony of Edgar A. Suter MD, National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc. (a national non-profit 501c(4) physicians think tank) before the California State Senate Criminal Procedure Committee in SUPPORT of AB638 - progressive reform of California concealed weapons licensing July 2, 1996 One rainy night a year ago I left one of my favorite San Francisco restaurants then noticed a shoe untied. While kneeling down before I could tie my shoe, three gang-bangers stepped from the shadows to surround me and pin me against a brick wall. They demanded money. As they closed in I retreated as far as I could and extended my palm and shouted "No!" -- but they kept coming until I reached for my holstered pistol. My body language was so unambiguous that all three beefy hoodlums fled before I could even draw my plastic-framed, high-capacity, semi-automatic Glock pistol loaded with dreaded Black Talon cartridges. Unharmed, I filed no police report, visited no emergency room, and didn't make the late news. Instead I went home and kissed and hugged my little boy, Jared. That night I thanked God that I was one of those lucky Californians licensed to carry a handgun for personal protection. A year later, Jared still has a daddy who hugs him, loves him, cooks him dinner, and goes fishing with him --- and so it goes for almost all of the 2.5 million mothers and fathers and others who use guns annually to protect themselves and their families.1 In over 98% of those protective uses, like mine, the gun isn't even fired.2 In only 1-in-a-thousand protective uses is the criminal killed.2 This is why the "43 times as likely to kill a family member"3 sound bite is so deceptive -- homeowners scare attackers away a thousand times more often than they kill them. One of my personal friends, Dr. Susanna Gratia-Hupp, wasn't so lucky. In 1991 Texas law did not allow her to carry her pistol, so it was useless in her truck, when George Henard methodically murdered Susanna's mother and father right in front of her along with 20 other people. The prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon stopped Susanna from carrying her protection, but it didn't stop George Henard. California's prohibition against carrying concealed weapons has not stopped gang-bangers, madmen, and predators from carrying guns, but the prohibition has kept good people from having the safest and most effective means of protection -- a gun -- at their disposal when they are vulnerable outside their homes. The topsy-turvy illogic of "gun control" ensured that none of the nearly two-hundred employees at the Pettit & Martin Law Firm were able to protect themselves from an armed madman. He prowled the 101 California Street office with his gun displayed for several minutes before he shot anyone. One armed and trained citizen had plenty of time to prevent those murders. If you vote to maintain the discriminatory status quo, the next preventable death is on your conscience. For almost a decade, state after state has taken note that there are 2.5 million lives protected annually in America1 - lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs saved, and property protected.2 There has been a tidal wave of progressive reform of concealed weapon licensing law, so that good, law-abiding, mentally-competent adults -- people like you, your family, and your friends -- can carry handguns for protection outside the home. These laws have eliminated the abuse of local law enforcement discretion that, like California, typically ensures that only white, affluent, politically-connected men have the "privilege" of protecting themselves. AB638 changes California concealed weapon law in only two substantive ways: (1) AB638 adds a training requirement and (2) AB638 ends the ability of California's police chiefs and sheriffs to discriminate on the basis of purely subjective criteria, dispensing permits as political perquisites4 - explaining the real reason for their opposition. No matter how you "spin" a vote against AB638, a vote against AB638 is a vote that opposes training for concealed weapon licensees and it is a vote the perpetuates the reprehensible discriminatory activity of many of California's urban chiefs and sheriffs. The anti-self-defense lobby has hysterically howled that reforms would lead to traffic altercation blood baths and family mayhem. Finally, after a decade of circling, the anti-self-defense vultures thought that they found their victim anecdote in Texas, but, for effect, they left out important details. After a minor fender-bender, a laborer ran a slender older man off the road and began punching him repeatedly in the face, head, and neck. The older man used his legally licensed pistol to shoot and kill his attacker who was decades younger and 100 pounds heavier. We weep no tears for a brute that was trying to beat a man to death, but the anti-self-defense lobby attempted to make the late bully a poster-boy. After the district attorney found the shooting justified, the anti-self-defense lobby turned down their volume. We balance the anti-self-defense lobby's "spin" and anecdotes with mountains of data on concealed handgun licensing reform.5 One of the first states in the vanguard of reform was Florida. Since 1987 Florida has issued a third of a million licenses and revoked a few dozen. Licensees have a far lower rate of crime than the general populace. Florida's homicide rate was 36% above the national average before reform and fell after reform, remaining below the national average to this day.2 A few anti-self-defense researchers in Maryland, McDowall and others, recently cooked the statistics. Instead of doing a statewide study of the statewide reforms as the title of their article suggested, they simply hand-picking five cities to "study."6 Doing this they were able to show "statistically significant" increases in 3 of 5 cities. To accomplish this they had to treat Miami differently from the other cities. They had to halve the pre-reform comparison period because using the same length of comparison period would have shown a reduction in Miami homicide after the reform. They also had to include justifiable homicides by police officers and civilians to make their numbers show the increase they desired. Humiliating for McDowall and his co-authors, the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology also published a devastating side-by-side expose of the tricks in McDowall's study.7 That same issue also published Kleck & Gertz' review of all the data from the 14 studies on the protective uses of guns showing that annually 2.5 million Americans use guns for protection.1 Also weighing in against McDowall's study of 5 cities is Cramer & Kopel's study of 14 states showing either no change or reductions in state homicide rates following AB638-like reform.5 Cramer & Kopel also reviewed California data showing that the counties with the highest rates of concealed weapon license issuance have the lowest rates of violence.5 A study by Lott & Mustard of the University of Chicago is nearing publication and shows even more impressive public safety benefits than Cramer & Kopel's study from AB638-like reform. The longer you wait to reform California's discriminatory concealed weapons law, the more evidence mounts showing the benfits of such reform and the more preventable deaths you will have on your consciences. We close with a few more observations from our study. In 1994 every category of crime indexed by the FBI was lower in the states that allowed good citizens to readily carry guns for protection outside the home.8 In 1994 one third of Americans live in those 22 states. There are now 28 states with such progressive reforms. Whether good citizens in those states carried their guns in their cars, on the street, in churches, in bars, or courthouses, homicide, assault, and overall violent crime were each 40% lower, armed robbery was 50% lower, rape was 30% lower, and property crimes were 10% lower. While one or two dozen times each year defenders have their guns taken from them, 2.5 million times the defenders succeed. We Californians, our families, and our neighbors are not the incompetent hotheads that you, the California Police Chiefs Association, and the anti-self-defense lobby pretend and, when those police chiefs -- or their line officers who do support AB638-like reforms -- can't be there, we want to have the safest and most effective means of protection against the vicious predators - a gun like the one that saved me. Please support gun safety training and oppose discrimination. Please support the progressive reforms of AB 638. 1 Kleck G and Gertz M. "Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Summer 1995:; 86:143-186. 2 Suter EA Waters WC 4th Murray GB Hopkins CB Asiaf J Moore JB Fackler M Cowan DN Eckenhoff RG Singer TR et al. "Violence in America - Effective solutions." J Med Assoc Ga June 1995; 84(6):253-263. 3 Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60. 4 Suter EA & Kasler PA. Response to the California Police Chiefs Association Position Paper #94-1 (August 1994) on gun violence. San Ramon CA: Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc. and The Public Trust Institute. April 17, 1995 (minor revisions March 13, 1996) 5 Cramer CE and Kopel DB. "'Shall Issue': The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws." Tennessee Law Review. Spring 1995; 62(3): 679-757. 6 McDowall D, Loftin C, & Wiersema B. "Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Summer 1995:; 86:193-206. 7 Polsby DD. "Firearms Costs, Firearms Benefits, and the Limits of Knowledge." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Summer 1995:; 86:207-220. 8 Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1994. Table 5.