0

Guns: A Public Health Issue?

It's difficult to have a serious conversation about the prevalence of guns in American society because it's one of those issues where so many people are strident one way or the other, and usually without the benefit of having done any actual research. We're working on a big project about guns for next year and are reading a variety of scholarship on the subject—much of which isn't particularly interested in the politics of guns, but in the public-health components. In recent weeks, I've read about the problems with gun control as well as about the realities of gun prevalence. One of the saddest parts is the number of accidental guns deaths, many to children. It is also a rather open secret how much more lethal suicide attempts can end up if someone tries with a gun.

I just ran into this report by the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. It's called "Firearms injuries and deaths: a critical public health issue." I urge anyone who is serious about looking at this issue in anything other than a black-white, assume-you-know-everything-about-it way to read through this report. If nothing else, it shows how complicated this issue really is.

I also urge real discussion on guns. We reported recently (again) about how many guns are bought legally in Mississippi and shipped to Chicago—a major problem there (one was used to kill a Chicago police officer). You can be in favor of legal weapons for hunting and even self-defense and still engage in a smart conversation on this issue. Let's unlock it from that either-or kneejerk frame; it's a vital issue for our community to engage.

In a JFP editorial recently, we referenced the Crime Lab at the University of Chicago, which is trying to lead an evidence-based discussion about guns. In an essay for the Crime lab (PDF), "Aiming for Evidence-based Gun Policy," professors and gun-policy experts Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig acknowledge that even experts don't agree on research about guns, but they urge:

One of our strongest conclusions is that reducing gun violence is important and deserves attention from policymakers. That statement may appear obvious, given that gun robberies and assaults victimize hundreds of thousands of people a year, resulting in 45,000 injuries and about 12,000 homicides (two-thirds of the total); a majority of suicides are committed with guns as well, with 17,000 victims a year. But these statistics do not really settle the question of policy importance. In particular, policymakers might be tempted to ignore the problem because gun violence, specifically gun assaults and homicides, is concentrated among those segments of society that do not carry much influence in the policymaking process—young, poor members of racial or ethnic minority groups, a large per- centage of whom have criminal records.

A second reason for ignoring the damage that guns do is a belief that guns per se are not really an important aspect of lethal violence—the type of weapon used in assault or suicide is just an incidental detail, and the focus should be on the underlying problems that produce the high overall rates of violence. Yet another reason, probably the one that we have heard most frequently from colleagues and friends, is that there is nothing to be done: Restricting gun commerce, ownership, and misuse is futile when there are over 200 million guns already in private hands.
As we shall see, the evidence tends to contradict each of these reasons for doubting the importance or potential for reducing gun use in violence. This is a problem worthy of public attention. A recent estimate indicates that interper- sonal gun violence was an $80 billion problem in the mid 1990s (Cook & Ludwig, 2000; Ludwig & Cook, 2001). Gun violence rates have declined since then, and the quality of life in America has improved as a result.

What specific policies are likely to best accomplish the goal of gun-violence reduction can't be determined with confidence, but the evidence does serve to bracket the likely effectiveness of some specific interventions and, more impor- tant, provides broad guidance for policy choice based on what we have learned about the technology of violence, criminal behavior, and the functioning of rele- vant markets and other institutions.

Their University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, "A Fact-Free Gun Policy? is also worth spending a bit of time with. This piece is interesting because they discuss why and how the gun debate is so polarized. Such as:

Needless to say, there are differences in opinion about gun con trol, and those differences tend to follow certain patterns. Views on gun control measures have been correlated with objective characteris- tics such as gender, race, region, religion, and military experience, as well as with such subjective matters as trust in government and judg- ment concerning the protection offered by the police.4 Kahan and Braman demonstrate that the two scales they construct from answers to survey questions, which, according to them, measure two dimen- sions of the respondent's "cultural worldview," are also associated with views on gun control.

They find that people who are opposed to gun control tend to be less supportive of government social and regulatory programs (their individualism-solidarismscale) and tend to be less pro- gressive with respect to race, sexual orientation, and capital punish- ment (their hierarchy-egalitarianism scale). But while circumstances and culture help "explain" (in a statistical sense) attitudes toward gun control, that is not the whole story.

For one thing, people's views of gun control depend on the specific policy measure in question.

Much more there; worth a read. Be ready to think. This research probably does fit either extreme on this issue.

Read more evidence-based crime pieces on the JFP Crime Blog.

Previous Comments

ID
165534
Comment

For what it's worth, I am very much in favor of strict gun control and would like to see all guns/firearms taken off the streets and out of houses. I am appalled at the range and variety of commercially available firearms displayed at stores and gun shows for public consumption. Personally, I haven't shot a weapon since my days in the US Navy (when I was forced to qualify as I was expected to carry a sidearm). Given my professed views on various topics on this and other forums, I would appear to be an outlier based on the UPenn article. That said...I just bought a house. And I am concerned about the entrenchment and expansion of crime in Jackson (not to mention the apparent weaknesses of the local police authorities) and the surrounding communities...and the Castle Doctrine is a legal means of defense. And I just bought a gun. And I will become proficient at its use. And when proficient, I will obtain a concealed carry permit. And I will venture forth armed...educated, but armed.

Author
Darryl
Date
2011-12-07T12:42:35-06:00
ID
165538
Comment

I may not agree that your gun is likely to make your family safer, Darryl, but good for you for your plans to get the appropriate training. One of the huge problems with what the police did was not even bring up safety concerns about guns to a bunch of young people, making it sound like the gun was an end-all for staying safe. Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course, and smart gun owners know that better than anyone. Smart gun enthusiasts have told me since we ran this editorial that it is foolish for police to make that suggestion in this way. My NRA friends always advise about safety and training before recommending that someone get a gun, as does the NRA itself. It's the people who seem to think gun-toting is a (war) game and a safety shield that we should all be worried about. And who are likely in the most danger as a result. It's like any excessive display of machismo or overt cockiness: It can shoot you in the ass quickly if you're not careful.

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2011-12-07T13:40:51-06:00
ID
165540
Comment

I will also add that I lost a depressed family member to suicide due to easy access to a gun just as so many other families have. If anyone reading this has someone suffering from depression in your family, please be very, very careful about allowing them easy access to a weapon if you can help it. Seriously.

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2011-12-07T13:42:23-06:00
ID
165553
Comment

Donna- Was just wondering are ya'll going to use any information that is not out of date?, like the AMA report you posted, it was written in 1989 and are you going to use any studies beside the ones done by Cook and Ludwig, who are funded with grants from the Joyce Foundation, a known anti-gun organization and they also fund many other anti-gun groups?

Author
BubbaT
Date
2011-12-08T16:07:06-06:00
ID
165555
Comment

beside the ones done by Cook and Ludwig, who are funded with grants from the Joyce Foundation, a known anti-gun organization and they also fund many other anti-gun groups? Yeah, Donna. From now on, please only use sources that support Bubba's worldview. All the other ones -- regardless of how many big words like "study," "research," "AMA," and "evidence-based" they throw at you -- are wrong if they don't 100% support what Bubba thinks. Thanks! (Bubba, I tried, but she doesn't listen to me, either.)

Author
Todd Stauffer
Date
2011-12-08T17:24:02-06:00
ID
165556
Comment

Todd- Really? Thinly veiled personal attack there,bud. Don't be an ass. What is the use of trying to have a serious conversation about guns,when it seems all that is going to be used in JFP's up coming "gun issue" is going to be one sided,anti-gun. Where is the research and papers and evidence based studies from the pro-gun side? If you're not going to present at least some fact base pro gun info then it's not a going to be a serious conversation, it's going to be a anti-gun hatchet job.

Author
BubbaT
Date
2011-12-08T18:45:48-06:00
ID
165557
Comment

Bubba: Here's the first paragraph of Donna's piece (it's up there above, too, in the space where you're supposed to read stuff): It's difficult to have a serious conversation about the prevalence of guns in American society because it's one of those issues where so many people are strident one way or the other, and usually without the benefit of having done any actual research. We're working on a big project about guns for next year and are reading a variety of scholarship on the subject—much of which isn't particularly interested in the politics of guns, but in the public-health components. Your response? You swing in and start criticizing the sources of this initial blog entry, even though she's saying RIGHT THERE that the point is to get beyond the politics and look for the real research-based content. In other words, put up or shut up. Here's the opportunity to show your sources. But, I'll caution you here -- just this idea of the term "anti-gun" is going to get you in trouble if you try to have a reasonable discussion about it; it's about as loaded a term as "pro abortion." You see, people can be *anti gun violence* without being "anti-gun." Gun folks get so wrapped up in "they want to take my gun," when, what a lot of folks really don't want is this: - not to be *shot* by your gun, - not to have other people shot by your gun, whether it's in your hand -- or the hand of the guy you sold it to -- or who stole it from you. So before you go too far down the rhetorical "pro gun" road, back up and read what's being written, and then participate or not. If not, then get off the Internet... and go clean your guns. If you are going to participate, though, bring your own sources and ideas; don't just crap all over others.

Author
Todd Stauffer
Date
2011-12-08T19:23:12-06:00
ID
165558
Comment

Bubba, I tried, but he won't stop being an ass. Especially when someone is being an ass to me. He's funny like that. The folks *I* am quoting are not anti-gun, Bubba. They are public-safety and economics and policy experts who are trying to get to real facts, no matter who they tick off. Which is my approach as well. Of course, y'all will call anyone who doesn't support the idea of packing without any controls anti-gun. So, whatever. You're not the target audience here, sorry. Otherwise, what the iTodd said.

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2011-12-08T20:08:42-06:00
ID
165559
Comment

Donna- I wasn't being an ass to you,I was asking you questions. The AMA report that you posted is out of date written in 1989, I read it, lots of the information in it is no longer true, "dealers are not required to indentify buyers residence" yes they are since 1998,"anyone can get a FFL for $10" I wish they were that cheap and easy to get,would save me alot of money. So it is very out of date and in my opinion useless to a "fact base" conversation since it's facts are on longer true. I have seen it stated on JFP, that fact base research by pro gun experts are not to be trusted because they are funded by the NRA or GOA, then why are "experts" in public-safety,economics and policy funded by anti-gun groups like the Joyce Foundation to be trusted without question? Are you going to let the pro gun side of the discussion post "facts" without questioning their sources and who funds the research?

Author
BubbaT
Date
2011-12-08T21:19:54-06:00
ID
165560
Comment

I, for one, am a big "gun guy", and most certainly don't support the idea of "packing without any controls". However I certainly can understand the recent surge in gun sales, especially to first time buyers. I think gun sales on Black Friday recently were an all time record. People realize the police cannot be everywhere at once and are taking the measures they deem necessary to protect themselves and their families. But by all means, if you have no experience with firearms, please get some training, even if it's from a friend that is knowledgeable with firearms and the safe and responsible handling of them.

Author
bill_jackson
Date
2011-12-08T22:14:24-06:00
ID
165563
Comment

Todd- No need to clean my guns today, going to the range tomorrow to practice for a match Sat. they shoot better a little dirty, might clean them after the match, will have to check the round count might not be time yet. But thanks for your concern for the cleanliness of my firearms.:)

Author
BubbaT
Date
2011-12-09T01:00:27-06:00
ID
165566
Comment

Bubba, I intentionally posted thought-provoking reports based on very good information. They're not the end-all; I asked above for people to post other links (where are yours?). You were an ass (your word, not mine) because you ignored everything I said and just went on the attack of any indication that guns might be a public-health problem (doh) and need some sorts of regulation. That is classic jackassery when it comes to trying to have an intelligent discussion. Then, you did the expected thing and labeled the Joyce Foundation an "anti-gun" group because, apparently, they might have funded peer-reviewed research that doesn't actually reach the conclusion that you want. That is very different from the research being funded by the NRA or another anti-gun regulation organization. This is the Joyce Foundation's mission: Mission Statement The Joyce Foundation supports efforts to protect the natural environment of the Great Lakes, to reduce poverty and violence in the region, and to ensure that its people have access to good schools, decent jobs, and a diverse and thriving culture. We are especially interested in improving public policies, because public systems such as education and welfare directly affect the lives of so many people, and because public policies help shape private sector decisions about jobs, the environment, and the health of our communities. To ensure that public policies truly reflect public rather than private interests, we support efforts to reform the system of financing election campaigns. Awful stuff, right? You will also note that they are in the Great Lakes region -- up there where police say *most* of the guns imported in and used for street crimes come from the state of Mississippi because it is so easy for about anyone to buy a weapon here. As you may recall, one bought legally here was used to kill a Chicago police officer. If I were the Joyce Foundation, or any other Great Lakes-area organization that cares about human lives, I would fund research into guns and public health as well. The problem with some of you is that you don't want to hear *anything* other than what you boys on the gun range decide is the God's honest truth. You want to live here in the nation's most violent and most gun-soaked region and never have an intelligent conversation about firearms and public safety. Therefore, you are useless in this kind of conversation and ought to just go find a gun blog to spew on. You're adding nothing here. And be warned: This conversation is going to happen whether or not you and others like it and no matter the level of vitriol y'all try to cart out to change the subject. BTW, here is the Joyce Foundation's Gun Violence Programs page for those who are interested. What an awful, awful group: Firearms Research The Joyce Foundation supports public health research and data collection to understand the prevalence, patterns, and costs of gun violence. Such research can give legislators, law-enforcement officials, health professionals, and community leaders the information essential to develop and evaluate potential solutions. The following are highlights of recent work on Firearms Research; for a complete list of Firearms Research grants, see program grants list.

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2011-12-09T09:42:23-06:00
ID
165567
Comment

What gets me about you guys who are sucked into the guns-at-any-costs script is that you show no concern about the high numbers of suicides, accidental killings and violence by children who either find the guns or own them. You all assume it won't happen in your family because you're somehow better and more together than all those other people it happens. Until, of course, it happens in your family. You act as if all of these instances, and the research proving the high dangers of guns in the home, are just collateral damage and doesn't matter. Meantime, some of the people who squawk the loudest about guns at any cost (not saying you, Bubba) are some of the scariest people one can imagine walking around with a gun.

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2011-12-09T09:52:30-06:00
ID
165568
Comment

Here's a source for firearms-related research from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center from 2000 to 2009. Check out this page about the incidence of children living in a household with a loaded, unlocked firearm (20 times less likely in a household in Massachusetts than Alabama, for instance). And don't miss the colorful state map. (And please note that southern states like Mississippi and Alabama are much more violent states for women.) And, wow, look at this list of topics. And see this one just on storage practices of firearms. Here's a study on the risks of unintentional death from keeping firearms in the home. There are many others to peruse. Enjoy.

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2011-12-09T10:21:20-06:00
ID
165578
Comment

Donna, No your wrong, there has been 2 accidental firearm injuries and 1 accidental firearm death while hunting in my immediate family, all were 30-50 yrs ago,all the result of handling a loaded firearm when it should have been unloaded, so yes it can happen in any family. Mississippi abides by all the federal laws on gun sales just like every state does, background checks, no felons, etc. While guns used in crimes in the Great Lakes regions *might* come from Miss and other Southern states, it has more to do with family ties than our gun laws. Got to remember Chicago has no guns shops or gun ranges in the city limits. Ands most the peope who do come south to buy guns can't legally buy one anywhere in the U.S. maybe the Great Lakes region needs to do something about keeping their criminals in the Great Lakes regions and out of the south committing gun crimes. That would be a great start to the problem. This statement by you proves you have a severe lack of knowledge about me or other gunowners and that you don't want to have a intelligent conversation with people you just want everyone to agree with you. "you don't want to hear *anything* other than what you boys on the gun range decide is the God's honest truth. You want to live here in the nation's most violent and most gun-soaked region and never have an intelligent conversation about firearms and public safety.Therefore, you are useless in this kind of conversation... "

Author
BubbaT
Date
2011-12-09T17:14:25-06:00
ID
165579
Comment

I've been wrong about you before, Bubba, but not often. Iffen you don't want to be lumped in with the non-thinkers on gun issues, then don't show up with posts like some of the ones above. Try to have a conversation that allows some wiggle room. I, for instance, think guns are dumb in about every situation; however, I'm not calling for them to be banned; I'm calling for intelligent thought and policy in order to keep kids and suicidal people alive, among others. In other words, I'm willing to compromise my views to help balance individual rights to pack heat and hang on the gun range with the greater good of the public to be safer. Everyone needs to compromise; it doesn't hurt. And it really can help. I have no patience for folks who are wedged in their little corner with their hands over their ears over anything except what they want to hear. And it's dangerous.

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2011-12-09T18:07:49-06:00
ID
165582
Comment

Got to remember Chicago has no guns shops or gun ranges in the city limits. Ands most the peope who do come south to buy guns can't legally buy one anywhere in the U.S. maybe the Great Lakes region needs to do something about keeping their criminals in the Great Lakes regions and out of the south committing gun crimes. That would be a great start to the problem. Bubba by making that comment, justifies the point about the ability to purchase or availability of firearms are too lenient.

Author
Duan C.
Date
2011-12-12T14:38:25-06:00
ID
165584
Comment

Duan- Yeah, it make real good sense to put more restrictions on the people not committing the crimes and aren't the problem, that works everytime.

Author
BubbaT
Date
2011-12-12T22:08:13-06:00
ID
165586
Comment

Is there a limit on how many guns a person can buy in total or over a particular time span?

Author
HooYoo2say
Date
2011-12-13T22:32:37-06:00
ID
165588
Comment

Guns cause crimes and pencils cause misspelled words. Didn't you guys know that?

Author
myndtheef
Date
2011-12-14T13:26:40-06:00
ID
165589
Comment

myndtheef -- your comment could not be less suggestive of a person interesting in actually solving problems. From above: As we shall see, the evidence tends to contradict each of these reasons for doubting the importance or potential for reducing gun use in violence. This is a problem worthy of public attention. A recent estimate indicates that interpersonal gun violence was an $80 billion problem in the mid 1990s (Cook & Ludwig, 2000; Ludwig & Cook, 2001). Gun violence rates have declined since then, and the quality of life in America has improved as a result.

Author
Todd Stauffer
Date
2011-12-14T14:16:29-06:00
ID
165592
Comment

I really wish we had a "like" button. ;-)

Author
DonnaLadd
Date
2011-12-14T15:35:12-06:00
ID
165631
Comment

Todd, you are wrong. I want to solve the problem, but the difference is that I do not consider guns to be the problem. I consider people to be the problem. We can both be right, but it depends on what fact you base your argument. I also have many of the same arguments with today's education landscape. Also, there have got to be more facts and studies that have occurred more recently than 10 years ago. 2000/2001 America is a vastly different landscape than 2011 America. After my 6 years in the Army and two tours of duty in Iraq, I saw a very different country every time I came home. In the mid-90's I would have gone into Jackson without a care in the world. Today, well, I'm a bit less naive about the actual crime statistics and I take appropriate precautions.

Author
myndtheef
Date
2011-12-21T08:29:53-06:00
ID
165632
Comment

"In the mid-90's I would have gone into Jackson without a care in the world. Today, well, I'm a bit less naive about the actual crime statistics and I take appropriate precautions." And why is that so? For someone that after their 6 years in the Army and two tours of duty in Iraq what makes Jackson so much more dangerous for you to take "approriate precautions"? I mean are there land mines and insurgents waiting for you on Pascagoula or State Street? Or on County Line Road? Or my bad, islamic extremests have to be hiding in Tougaloo assume? Or the Iranians must have took over the State Veterans Home and Marine Supply on South Drive!? Myndtheef - I find that comment of yours so cynical, its almost comical - especially coming from a person with a military background

Author
Duan C.
Date
2011-12-21T12:02:54-06:00
ID
165633
Comment

Todd, you are wrong. I want to solve the problem, but the difference is that I do not consider guns to be the problem. I consider people to be the problem. Fabulous. I also consider people to be the problem. And, in fact, I believe part of the problem is certain people who have easy access to guns. Also, there have got to be more facts and studies that have occurred more recently than 10 years ago... There are plenty, and we're referencing them above, throughout the thread and elsewhere. Again, the point of this original piece was to begin an intelligent exploration of the issue, not just pronounce the findings. If you'll read the paragraph you're criticizing again... As we shall see, the evidence tends to contradict each of these reasons for doubting the importance or potential for reducing gun use in violence. This is a problem worthy of public attention. A recent estimate indicates that interpersonal gun violence was an $80 billion problem in the mid 1990s (Cook & Ludwig, 2000; Ludwig & Cook, 2001). Gun violence rates have declined since then, and the quality of life in America has improved as a result. You'll see that those studies were SPECIFICALLY QUOTED because they were **in the past**, and that the last sentence puts them in context by bringing the discussion into the present. "Context" is a big word in these discussions. Part of appreciating context is reading entire sentences and paragraphs and not just finding a word here or there to refute. Finally, myndtheef, if you're truly a vet then I appreciate your service to the country... and your perspective, if presented seriously, sounds as if it might offer insight. But what you say above is the very reason that things need broad-based study and context -- your individual experiences and perceptions are your own, and you're free to act on them within the limits of the law -- but they're not the final word on how public policy should be carried out.

Author
Todd Stauffer
Date
2011-12-21T12:49:11-06:00
ID
165634
Comment

For Duan, I know it maybe hard to grasp the concept if you have never served overseas, but in Jackson I have maliciously had a gun pointed to my head during a robbery. While in the Infantry in Iraq, my vehicle was blown up four different times by nameless, faceless IEDs, but never once did someone face to face threaten me with a gun. Over there I have armored vehicles, body armor, lots of bullets, a weapon (or three), and a group of buddies with the same who are ready to have my back with their lives. Here, I have my concealed carry permit, a pistol, and a prayer that I don't end up in the wrong part of Hinds county at the wrong time. So, yes, things are a little different. It's all about perspective. Todd, I am a vet, active duty and Mississippi National Guard. I go to the VA in Jackson and I have a DD214 form that chronicles my entire service history. I really am here for serious discussion. I know that some of my comments may have seemed a little cynical, but that is partly because my experiences in the military and in Hinds county have made me that way. I gave lengthier explanation of my gun life in response to the other gun article ("Guns a safety issue" or something like that) written recently if you would like to read that. I'm not trying to be one of those comment trolls.

Author
myndtheef
Date
2011-12-21T14:26:43-06:00
ID
165636
Comment

Jackson I have maliciously had a gun pointed to my head during a robbery. Please give me a timeline of the event, when and where it happened, and how you were approached? I'm just curious to the actual event where someone actualy pointed a gun to your head and let you live to tell the story, but yet your more comfortable in a war torn country, where anything can happen to you at any given moment and the probability of death is at a more astronomical rate, than a country where there isn't a war going on?

Author
Duan C.
Date
2011-12-21T16:09:09-06:00
ID
165644
Comment

Duan C- What does it matter when it happened? Myndheef already told you why he was more comforable in a war torn county than in Jackson, read his post again. I have heard quite a few Iraq/Afgan. vets say the same thing. Todd- Most gun owners, including myself agree with you it's the wrong people getting guns causing the problems, but 99.9% of time the only solutions offered by the "more control" people does nothing to stop the wrong people from getting guns, usually it just would make it harded for law abiding people and they aren't even part of the problem.

Author
BubbaT
Date
2011-12-22T16:24:18-06:00
ID
165646
Comment

Being in a war-torn country studded with landmines and IEDs and being in Jackson is a difference in perspective, expectation and purpose. In a war-torn country, the potential for violence is overt and the soldier's stated purpose in being there is to combat it. That creates an emotional state of high vigilance fueled by anxiety and adrenaline. Some soldiers become so acclimated to the hyperawareness required for survival that they never really re-acclimate to 'normal' living conditions when they return home. Their adrenal system (which produces cortisol, the 'fight or flight' hormone) is permanently damaged. In ordinary living circumstances, one goes about one's day with safety practices not necessarily at a conscious level. Being a middle-aged woman, I park in well-lit areas and look for a security patrol nearby before exiting or approaching my vehicle. This is common sense for who I am and where I live and doesn't require a state of high vigilance or buddy soldiers watching my back to implement successfully. I'm not full of terror--most of my self-protection requires a watchful air of confidence without threat, which has served me well through the years. In ordinary living circumstances, one doesn't walk around in a state of hypervigilance because that's difficult to maintain without a constant presence of threat. Therefore, when violence does occur in ordinary circumstances, the shock may be a greater one than in situations where the threat/expectation is constantly present. The distance from 'readiness' to 'action' is much greater... I have experienced gun violence in Jackson: I was shot at by a young police officer in error during a car/foot chase that ended on my property a few years ago. (No, Duan C., I don't care to share further details in a public forum, thank you.) One of the first rules of firearm use is to hold your fire unless you're sure of your target. I would be much more reassured about the abilities of our police department to serve and protect if they were hiring a few more experienced officers along with all the rookies just graduated from the academy. Experience does make a difference.

Author
LHB6391
Date
2011-12-24T14:28:51-06:00

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment