[Salutation omitted]

My first issue is with the NCPC's pamphlet titled, "It's Time to Stop the Violence."

In case you don't have the pamphlet handy, it can be viewed here: http://www.ci.mesa.az.us/police/stopviolence.htm

What I find so disturbing about the pamphlet is that it presents erroneous gun violence statistics and grossly mis-cites studies in an attempt to demonize firearms. A few examples follow...

The very first sentence of the pamphlet states, "...eight of ten [murders] involve a firearm." The number of homicides involving a firearm has NEVER risen above 70% from 1966-1999. It is currently 65%. Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Available here: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t3136.pdf and recent ones are viewable at the FBI's Web site here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm.)

The pamphlet's next sentence claims, "Most robberies involve the use of a weapon, most frequently a handgun." The truth is, the most frequent type of robbery involves no weapon at all. For example in 1998, firearms were used in 38% of robberies compared to 40% strong-arm. (A strong-arm robbery is one where no weapon is used.) Again looking at FBI data, going back to 1974, when such stats started to be recorded, the highest rate reached for firearm robberies was 45%. (The numbers cited for 1998 are a fairly typical year.)

This one is completely absurd: "Think long and hard about having weapons, especially firearms, in your home. Studies show that a firearm in the home is more than forty times as likely to hurt or kill a family member as to stop a crime." Please note it says "studies" in the plural. There is not a *single* study that has made such a conclusion. To rephrase that quote, the pamphlet claims there are studies showing that one is forty times more likely to hurt or kill a family member with a firearm than successfully use it in self-defense.

There is only one study that came-up with a "forty times" ratio, but the pamphlet grossly misquotes the actual study conducted by Drs. Kellermann and Reay. Their findings were: "For every case of self- rotection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms." In other words their claim is that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to *kill* someone in the home rather than someone in the home *killing* a criminal. Since the overwhelming majority of self-defense uses does not involve a fatal shooting, such a ratio is not surprising. Further using the same methodology as Kellermann et. al, one can show that the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1 with a gun in the home to 99 to 1 without (Please see: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html) However as the aforementioned link points out, both ratios are "nonsense ratios." And regardless of what one thinks of Kellermann's research, the pamphlet grossly mis-cites the research.

The end of the pamphlet lists two groups to contact for more information. One of which, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, is on record as supporting a ban on the civilian possession of handguns.

(The above is by no means a complete rebuttal to the violence statistics or studies quoted/mis-quoted by that pamphlet.)

I would like to know whether or not the NCPC intends to correct the gross-inaccuraces and whether NCPC plans to continue a one-sided attack on guns and gun ownership. There are of course benefits to gun ownership. Does the NCPC plan to continue its biased, one-sided approach? Can't gun safety be urged in a neutral fashion, especially since the NCPC receives some of its funding from the federal government?

(It doesn't matter whether NCPC has 100 other pamphlets that are neutral in nature because the one in question is being distributed far and wide.)

Bye the way, the paragraph of the first page here: http://www.ncpc.org/1safe8dc.htm also contains some of the gross inaccuracies mentioned above.

It's a shame that even gun safety has become so politicized.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Howard Picard

P.S. I noticed Stephanie Shields works with NCPC. Is she related to the late Pete Shields?