|
| Gun Control: Is Brady For or Against Workplace Safety? |
|
Howard Nemerov on March 20, 2007 |
|
In Fall 2005, Brady Campaign published a report called Forced Entry: The National Rifle Association’s Campaign To Force Business To Accept Guns At Work. It includes the term “CCW” 17 times by the end of page 1 and contains an appendix entitled “CCW License Holders: “Law-Abiding Citizens?”1 This makes it reasonable to infer that this report is just as much an attempt to condemn right-to-carry as it is an argument against permitting qualified employees to bear arms to or at work. Citing Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, Brady implies that workplace violence is at epidemic levels. It notes:
Referring to the BLS, we see that there were 487 workplace homicides in 2003, with 433, or 89%, occurring in the private sector.3 Despite rounding errors which make their numbers more sinister, Brady seems to be on track, so we will use their data sources in this discussion. What Brady Doesn’t SayBLS data shows that the only category with a smaller number of non-fatal incidents is rape, and shootings make up 0.6% of all assaults and violent acts. People are four times more likely to get bitten at work than shot.4 Brady states:
Using this criteria, banning teeth would make the workplace four times safer than banning guns, and companies should “have an obligation” to do so. Brady continues with their anti-CCW message:
From 1992 to 2005, the BLS notes that homicides in the workplace dropped from 1,044 to 564, a 46% decrease. In 1992, homicides were the second most common cause of workplace fatalities, trailing highway incidents by only 10%. By 2005, homicides dropped to the fourth most common cause, trailing highway incidents by over 60%. Most interesting is that the trend for the three other most frequent causes of workplace fatality increased since 1992, while homicide declined dramatically: highway incidents increased 23.3%, falls 27.8%, and “struck by object” increased 8.4%.7 It would seem reasonable that Brady should rename itself to the Campaign Against Falling if it were truly concerned over workplace safety. During this time frame, 21 states enacted shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC) laws, more than doubling the number of RTC states.8 Also during this time, the national violent crime rate dropped 38.1% and the murder rate decreased 39.6%.9 According to Brady logic, this should “prove” that RTC will reduce workplace homicides: guns in public increased while the chance for violence decreased, therefore “increasing the number of guns on company property” should decrease the chance of violence. John Lott reached the same conclusion when he collated mass murders and RTC. In his book The Bias Against Guns, Lott examined the relationship between gun availability and multiple murders, concluding:
Lott also found that both the total number and rate of multiple murders in right-to-carry states are one-third that of restrictive states.11 In an email interview, he clarified by stating:
Finally, none of the BLS data identifies whether an incident was part of intentional crime such as robbery, nor does it indicate whether the perpetrator was a RTC licensee, so there is no documented link between RTC and increased workplace violence. What is very interesting is that when divided by the total number of private and public employees, the workplace homicide rate in 2005 was 0.4 per 100,000 population,12 compared to the national homicide rate of 5.6 (14 times higher).13 This brings up an interesting question: If workers in honest industries have such a low murder rate, is the balance made up of workers in “dishonest” industries? Removing what might be considered “lamentable incidents” like romantic triangles, a child killed by their babysitter, and certain arguments which could be domestic violence, the estimated crime-related murder rate is 4.3. Dr. Martin L. Fackler, a leading firearms wound ballistics expert, would concur with this estimate:
Virtual Reality Brady continues:
Summarizing the state of Texas CHL eligibility requirements, as one example, we find the applicant must:
If such regulations allow “virtually anyone” to obtain a CCW, then Brady criteria prove that virtually the entire population is healthy, responsible and law-abiding. Anecdotes Are Not Scientific ResearchAppendix A of Forced Entry contains what Brady calls “The Incident File”.17 It lists 41 alleged firearm violations by RTC licensees, committed over the seven-year period of 1996-2002, 30 of which actually involved somebody getting shot. One of the incidents was ruled self-defense:
Brady includes six incidents that were accidental discharges, leaving 23 incidents with criminal intent. Guy Smith, in his book Gun Facts, notes four violent acts and one property crime by gun control advocates during the year 2000: one shooting, two assaults, one theft, and one terrorist threat.20 Brady Campaign expects perfection from gun owners, but a search of its web site shows it is curiously quiet regarding these incidents. Anecdotes can be found for both sides of this argument, but they prove nothing except for Brady’s double standard. Brady Campaign set out to prove that guns are bad and RTC licensees are worse, but their own data sources prove the opposite. Endnotes[1] Legal Action Project, Forced Entry: The National Rifle Association’s Campaign To Force Business To Accept Guns At Work, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, November 2005. http://www.bradycampaign.com/xshare/pdf/forced-entry-report.pdf 2 Forced Entry, page 1. 3 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-2: Fatal occupational injuries resulting from transportation incidents and homicides, All United States, 2003, U.S. Department of Labor, page 1. http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0188.pdf 4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table R31: Number of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses involving days away from work by event or exposure leading to injury or illness and selected natures of injury or illness, 2002, U.S. Department of Labor, page 13. http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/case/ostb1298.pdf 5 Forced Entry, page 1. http://www.bradycampaign.com/xshare/pdf/forced-entry-report.pdf 6 Forced Entry, page 1. http://www.bradycampaign.com/xshare/pdf/forced-entry-report.pdf 7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2005, United States Department of Labor, August 10, 2006, page 2. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf 8 Institute for Legislative Action, Right-to-Carry 2007, National Rifle Association, January 16, 2007. http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18 9 Table 1 – Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 – 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl01.xls 10 John R. Lott, Jr., The Bias Against Guns, page 123. 11 Ibid, page 107. 12 Divide the numbers in Table 1 by the Total Non-farm employees for December 2005 in Bureau of Labor Statistics, Comparison of All Employees, not seasonally adjusted, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaeu.txt 13 Table 1 – Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 – 2005. 14 Martin L. Fackler, Firearms in America: The Facts, NewsMax, Dece. 25, 2000. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/23/225251.shtml 15 Forced Entry, page 1. 16 Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and Selected Statutes, 2005-2006, Texas Department of Public Safety, January, 2006, pages 3-5. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf 17 Forced Entry, page 15-18. 18 Forced Entry, page 15. 19 Concealed carry permit holder shooting ruled self-defense, Keep and Bear Arms, September 4&5, 2001. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2446 20 Guy Smith, Gun Facts, Version 4.1, Copyright 2006, page 71. http://www.gunfacts.info/ |