Many gun-control advocates `overlook' important details

0 Comments | Insight on the News, May 13, 2002 | by John Clarke

Sam MacDonald's cover story about gun-control legislation ["An Antigun Firefight," April 22] mentions how the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence warned about the risks of guns in the home. The group cited the case of a 3-year-old Virginia boy who killed himself with a hand-gun his father purchased in response to Sept. 11.

A news story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch illustrates how the Brady Center and others leave out pertinent information if it does not suit their agenda. It was not the presence of the gun, as the Brady Center alleged, that caused the death but, rather, leaving it in a loaded and chambered condition within easy reach of a child.

It also appears that the Brady Center still uses, though without attribution, the flawed study (since disavowed by its author) that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to injure or kill a family member than a criminal with a gun.

I hope others are aware that the much-pointed-at murders at the Appalachian School of Law, committed by a failing student with a handgun, also were brought to an end by two other students who used their own handguns to force the killer to surrender.

Only a few newspapers published this information, and it was not provided by the wire service that distributed the story nationally. It is shameful that this particular incident continues to be held up as an example of why gun control should be stricter, in spite of the fact that guns helped the rescuers.

MacDonald's article on gun-control legislation is so evenhanded that it is difficult to tell where he stands on the issue. But that is something I have been taught is a desirable trait in journalists.

John Clarke
via the Internet