----- Original Message -----
  From: Chris Meissen
  To: moccw@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [moccw] Rep Wilson's Quote


  On 23 Jul 2003 at 21:07, Richard Hime wrote:

  > She didn't quite make the 15 day limit on response, but she did
  > respond.  Pretty typical, unrelated, unsubstaniated, disassociated
  > arguments.  If anyone wants to help draft my response, pick one of
  > her arguments and send me your counterpoint.  I'm open to any help

  Hmmmm...   It's word for word the same response I received.  It's nice to know that
  she got enough flack to require the generation of a boilerplate response. <grin>

  Anyway, here's the response I sent back before I learned that her's was a form
  letter.

    ---------------

  On 23 Jul 2003 at 10:32, Julie Youmans wrote:

  > Dear Sir:
  >
  >       Thank you contacting me and for your interest in what was reported in
  > the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  I appreciate you following up with me
  > after reading what I said.  I also appreciate you giving me an
  > opportunity to respond with more information that the newspaper would
  > not allow.  I hope that the information below confirms that my comments
  > were not made lightly or without checking facts.  I know that both of us
  > are ultimately only concerned with the safety of individuals and our
  > community spaces.

  On that point we both agree. <smile>  We may have different opinions on
  how to achieve that safety but nonetheless achieving it is the goal. And I
  am grateful to you for taking the time to read and respond to my email.  I
  do see this as a "women's issue" and I hope that with more information you
  can come to see how allowing honest citizens, expecially woment, the right
  to choose whether or not to carry the means of self defense is true
  empowerment.

  >       I am sorry to hear that you disagree that it is more likely that
  > someone would be injured either in anger or by accidental discharge by
  > having more small weapons available than the unlikely event that crime
  > will be deterred. In response to your inquiry, there is a great deal of
  > research that clearly supports my statement. For example, the New
  > England Journal of Medicine reported that a gun in the home is 43 times
  > more likely to cause the death of a family member or a friend than a
  > criminal.  The study concluded: "The home can be a dangerous place.  We
  > noted 43 suicides, criminal homicides, or accidental gunshot deaths
  > involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for
  > self-protection.  In light of these findings, it may be reasonably asked
  > whether keeping firearms in the home increases a family's protection or
  > places it in greater danger."  This study concluded that having a gun in
  > the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the
  > family would be killed.

  With all due respect, your citing of Kellerman's discredited study hints
  that you may have simply accepted the press releases and literature from
  the groups opposed to civilian self-defense without researching the issue
  very deeply yourself. I know of no organization other than Million Mom
  March and the Brady group formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc. which
  give that study any credence anymore.

  The study mentioned above, as I recall, was conducted in King county
  Washington by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University, an antigun
  researcher notorious for selecting his facts to fit his preferred outcome
  and for citing himself to substantiate his various anti-gun repots.  In
  fact, as for as I know he is still refusing to release the raw research
  data from that survey for unbiased peer review.  What is known is that the
  five year period incorporated in that study had an unusually high number
  of suicides. Had the study period been shifted a year either direction the
  number would have been far smaller.

  Similarly, he compared gun ownership in high crime minority neighborhoods
  to non- gunowners in low crime white neighborhoods. He failed to take into
  account the differing income levels, community ethnic/racial composition,
  or the criminal records, if any,  of the victims in his study, unlike Dr.
  John Lott who did consider these factors in his much more comprehensive 15
  year study. 

  Finally, Dr. Kellermann's definition of firearms defense was extremely
  restrictive and bloodthirsty while his definition of firearm victim was
  quite broad.  Defensive incidents counted in his study only if the
  criminal assailant died in the home. Studies by Kleck, Lott, Wright,
  Rossi, and numerous other peer-reviewed researchers all find that the
  firearm is not fired in approximately 99% of the instances of defense; it
  is sufficient for the intended victim to simply demonstrate that he or she
  is armed and willing to defend him or herself. The results of these less
  biased studies would indicate that Kellerman undercounted defensive uses
  by a factor of 100 or more since even those times in which the  gun was
  fired but the perpetrator only wounded or frightened were not counted.

  In short, citing Arthur Kellerman as an authority does NOT buttress one's
  credibility with anyone familiar with the issue.

  In contrast, both Prof. Gary Kleck and Prof. John Lott began their studies
  with the expectation that the results would reinforce arguments for more
  gun control.  Both were intellectually honest enough to admit that the
  evidence contradicted their expectations and to change their viewpoints as
  a result.  Professor Kleck still states that he believes in minimal
  controls such as permit systems but has come to also believe that the
  presence of firearms, or more properly the POSSIBILITY of the presence of
  guns does reduce crime.  I can't at the moment recall the first names of
  Messrs. Wright and Rossi but their seminal study in 1976 was one of the
  first to document the beneficial societal effects of firearms ownership.
  Both, prior to their study were ardent advocates of gun control. In fact,
  the only publications by Mr. Wright to be found in most public libraries
  are his works written prior to that joint study and arguing against gun
  ownershiop.

  > I am sorry that we do not see eye to eye on this issue.  However I am
  > hopeful that there are other issues that we can come together on.  I
  > appreciate your concern and if there are any other issues that I can
  > help you with, please feel free to contact me in the future.

  Perhaps, as you seem an honest person who considers facts rather than a
  knee jerk antigun fanatic like Bob Holden appears to be, we may some day
  see eye to eye on this issue.  I myself was once a Eugene McCarthy
  Democrat.  It was only after literally years of studying this issue,
  starting with research done for an English assignment in college,  that I
  reached my current views. The views and opinions each of us holds are
  formed and limited by the information to which we've been exposed.
  Hopefully, after you've learned more about this issue you will come to
  understand why Texas last week relaxed that states CCW laws to allow guns
  to be carried into government-owned buildings including police stations by
  permit holders. States don't do this if they're experiencing difficulties
  under their current law.

  Again, thank you for being so open and responsive.

  Sincerely,

  Christopher A. Meissen