Response to “A Roll Call on Weapons”

Phil Lee

Feb. 21, 2004

The Washington Post advises Maryland to pass a ban on "assault-style" weapons in the editorial "A Roll Call on Weapons" [see below]. The Post acknowledges a problem with truthfulness from a Violence Policy Center report that appears to have lied about the "one-in-five" number of police officers killed with such firearms. But the Post dismisses that deception by asking, "What if the statistic were one in 20?" That is a question worth exploring.

Maryland is one of the most violent states with the highest rate of robbery for the past 8 years and high rates of murder and assaults. So, the weapons used to kill Maryland Police Officers should be of interest to Maryland legislators as they consider any ban.

Nineteen Maryland Police Officers have died during the period 1988 through 2003 from trauma received in felonious assaults. One was from stabbing, one from stabbing until incapacitation then the officer's handgun was used to finish him off, one assaulted with an automobile and 16 were straight shootings. Of wounds from these 16 shooting deaths 12 were from handguns, 3 from ordinary shotguns and one from a rifle. According to the Post 1 in 20 criteria, handguns should be banned, shotguns should be banned and rifles should be banned by Maryland.

Here we have a moment of unintended truth from the Post. All guns should be banned from ownership by the people. The Post may claim that isn't their intent. If so, they need to explain why they would leave some firearms, handguns say, in the hands of the people which are involved in more officer deaths than the ones they recommend banning.

Perhaps the Post might want to exempt rifles from its one-in-20 criteria when it hears that the one officer dying from a rifle wound was actually shot in 1977 and died 23 years later and 10 years after retiring with 20 years on the force. Removing that one death from the list reflect the fact that no officers died from rifle wounds received in the 16 year period cited.

That's right, Maryland officers have not been shot and killed with AK-47s, AR-15s, M-1As, ... or any rifle whatsoever during 16 years examined and this is the record in one of the most violent states in the union. Perhaps the Post should re-think its support for banning "assault-style" firearms.

Sincerely,

Philip F. Lee

Silver Spring, MD

Philip Lee received a PhD in Mathematics from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1970.

In the following list I include officer's names and firearm type used for you to check the accuracy of my assertion. For more on this subject see Risks to Police from Firearms.

Officers dying solely from handgun wounds:

Thomas G. Newman

James V. Arnaud

Elizabeth L. Magruder

Michael J. Cowdery

Edward M. Toatley

Bruce A. Prothero

Edward A. Plank, Jr

John J. Novabilski

Herman A. Jones, Sr

Ryan C. Johnson

Theodore D. Wolf

William J. Martin

Officers dying solely from shotgun wounds:

Michael S. Nickerson

Jason C. Schwenz

Owen E. Sweeney, Jr

Officer dying in 2000 from a rifle wound received in 1977:

John W. Stem

Officer dying from assault with an automobile:

Kevon M. Gavin

Officers Stabbed to death or stabbed and shot:

Ira N. Weiner

Harry L. Kinikin, Jr

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53110-2004Feb18.html

A Roll Call on Weapons

Thursday, February 19, 2004; Page A22

THOUGH THERE is no sensible, compelling reason for a civilized society to be loading up with assault-style weapons -- arms that sportsmen do not need -- Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) and state lawmakers who answer to the call of the National Rifle Association favor the free flow of these arms. And though several surveys over the years have shown that most Marylanders support a ban on such weapons, opponents are working to defeat a measure that would keep a state ban in place if Congress fails to extend a federal ban to expire Sept. 13. A critical vote -- which could be decided by one swing senator in Annapolis -- is set for today or tomorrow in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

According to head counts yesterday, five senators supported the measure, five opposed it and Sen. John A. Giannetti Jr. (D-Prince George's) had not indicated how he will vote. Given the importance of the measure, the committee should let the bill go to the floor of the Senate, where every member's position can be recorded for their constituents to see. As Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery), lead sponsor of the bill, warned this month, "If we don't act" and the federal ban expires, "on September 14 you are going to be able to buy an AK-47 again, or an Uzi or a street sweeper" -- weapons designed chiefly to kill people.

One of the chief arguments of opponents is that assault weapons haven't killed as many law enforcement officers as proponents of the ban have been saying. Specifically they challenge a study by the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit that analyzed FBI data on fatal police shootings from Jan. 1, 1998, through Dec. 21, 2001. During that period 211 officers in the United States were killed in the line of duty, 41 of them with weapons that the center determined to be assault-style weapons: AK-47s, M-1 carbines and others. That's one in five officers.

What if the statistic were one in 20? Why does anyone -- killer or not -- need to own one of these weapons? Why leave any police officers outgunned on the streets? Why does Howard County Police Chief G. Wayne Livesay, president of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, support the ban? Why do so many Marylanders view the ban not as an infringement but as a matter of public safety? Would those who favor repeal of assault weapons also support the return of machine guns to the civilian market?

Congress should not let the federal ban expire; it should expand the limited number of weapons covered. In the meantime, Maryland ought to protect itself; that won't happen if six state senators kill the reasonable measure before their committee.