15 yards doesn't seem like that far, that is until you are trying to point something exactly at the center of a circle 1 inch in diameter 15 yards away. You align the three tops of the sights so that they form a solid line, then move that line until it half covers that 1 inch spot. The gun I am using in this case is a baby eagle 9mm, also known as a Jericho 941, a single/double action semi automatic pistol. It weighs approximately 1.5 lbs with a fully loaded magazine and is coated in a dark reflective coating known as "blackened nickel". It is, by most accounts, a good looking gun. With the posts properly aligned (the dots on the sights are superfluous, they just make the alignment process easier, though less accurate), and the center of the target half obscured, you pull the trigger gently back about half an inch, until the resistance changes subtly. This is the break point, any more rearward movement results in discharge. You exhale and relax your shoulders without allowing your hands to move, then using just your fingertip and being careful not to allow the rest of your hand to tense, you pull the trigger a little more. The bang is deafening, even outdoors (indoors it is excruciatingly painful) and the gun forces your hands to snap back at the wrists as the round discharges. Fifteen yards away a hole slightly less than half an inch in diameter appears on the target, centered about an inch and a half below and to the left of the spot you were aiming at. The next shot creates a hole about a tenth of an inch away from the first, and the next 8 turn that spot into a ragged hole in the target about 2 inches in diameter. Like all activities in which perfection is the goal, the premise is simple but the proper execution is painstaking in the mastering of the details, and the satisfaction in the slightest improvement is monumental.
The above described process is known as "bull's-eye shooting", and it is one of several techniques I practice as often as I can, usually 3-4 times a month. Others I practice routinely are target acquisition drills, in which exact shot placement takes second place to hitting the target three or four times as quickly as possible, draw and fire drills in which the goal is to draw from a holster and land two or three shots on target within a second and a half from 7 yards and (when possible) movement drills in which I fire at targets while moving in various directions. As enjoyable as I find these activities, I do not do them strictly for the "fun" factor. I practice because I have made the choice to carry a gun, and because I live in a "shall issue" state, meaning that as long as my criminal history is clear and I have no history of mental disturbance that the state is required to issue me a license upon my application, I have been able to obtain a license to do so. Consequently I feel that I need to be prepared if ever the need arises to use that gun as effectively and as safely as possible.
The decision to carry a gun was not one I made lightly, and is the result of many different considerations. My reasons for wanting to carry a gun are simple, and I think, shared by most. I am fully aware that there are people in the world who would, if given the chance, be willing to hurt me or people I am with in order to take whatever we have, or just for the joy of cruelty. I know this in the same way that virtually everyone does, we see it and read about it daily in the news. Whether it is for a persons wallet or their car or their laptop or even for no apparent reason at all as happened on a Philadelphia subway (Associated Press). The world, while generally populated by kind polite people, does contain people who may use violence against us. Unfortunately this happens far more often than we like to consider, according to data available from the FBI (FBI.gov) there were 1,408,337 violent crimes in the US in 2007.
So for the same reasons that I keep fire extinguishers in my home, or wear a seatbelt while I drive, I take precautionary measures for these possibilities. I keep myself in shape (moderately), keep aware of my surroundings, have received some martial arts training and generally stay away from situations which would invite violence. Despite those precautions though, I am still fully aware that those who choose to do violence to others generally use tactics which keep the odds of success fully in their favor. They will use greater numbers, weapons and select times and locations which limit the possibility of help or escape. The only device available, which really has the potential to counter these advantages that the aggressor possesses, is a firearm.
As clear as my motivations for wanting to carry a gun are though, there were a number of other considerations I had explore before I made my decision. Guns in general, and civilians (non police or military) carrying guns in particular tend to elicit strong reactions from people. This is not surprising considering the nature of firearms. Unlike other means of self defense (and for the purposes of this paper that is the firearm use I will focus on as opposed to sporting or leisure activities) guns do not bequeath any physical fitness advantages, cannot be used as multipurpose tools and are not merely a delaying tactic to increase odds of escape. Gun's are designed and used for only one thing, they are designed to kill and wound people, and they do this with gruesome efficiency. As such, before I could in good conscious make my decision I owed it to myself and to those around me to give serious consideration to the arguments against a civilian carrying a handgun.
Tom Diaz, in his book "Making a Killing, The Business of Guns in America" (Diaz) clearly outlines many of the concerns many people feel when they consider this topic. He claims that a firearm kept in the house is far more likely to be used in a criminal homicide, a suicide or be the cause of an unintentional death than it is to be used is stopping a crime. He also posits that people carrying firearms may fall prey to certain behavioral changes such as using a firearm in place of choosing another (and presumably less dangerous) avenue for avoiding trouble and that the readiness to use firearms may result in fatal mistakes. Another popular concern is that the presence of guns will cause normally benign arguments to escalate into shooting frenzies. Before I could decide to carry a handgun, I felt I needed to answer these concerns, both for myself, and for the good of those around me.
Of course, where there are guns, as with virtually anything else, there will be accidents. Before I would be willing to make a handgun part of my daily life I owed it to everyone to know just how dangerous this thing is. I don't mean dangerous in what it is capable of doing, but how likely it is that someone will unintentionally be hurt by it.
Just today (11/30/08) there was a report on CNN in which a five year old child found his fathers gun and shot his two year old brother in the hand. Luckily in this case only 1 child was hurt and no one was killed. Reports like this though are all too common, so common in fact that Tom Diaz claims that for every time a firearm is used in self defense there are 1.3 unintentional deaths involving firearms.
Just how common are firearm accidents though, in particular how common are those accidents in which children are hurt? Unfortunately in a discussion as politically charged as this, real and reliable numbers can be difficult to obtain. According to the Brady campaign in 2005 approximately 55480 "kids" were killed by firearm related homicides, suicides and accidents in 2005 ("Fact Sheets"). In contrast to this David Kopel of the Second Amendment project at the Independence Institute found that in 1988 only 277 children under the age of 15 were killed by accidental firearm discharges. While 277 is a substantial number, and catastrophic without a doubt, it is still interesting to note that this number represents a 48% decrease from the number in 1974. Interestingly the number of firearm accidents involving children decreased even as the overall number of privately owned firearms increased. In fact, in 1988 the actual rate of firearm accidents involving children was .6 per 100,000 (Kopel).According to the CDC though, in 2005 the number of children actually killed in firearm accidents was 127. When the search is expanded to include people of all age ranges the figure climbs to 789 firearm related accidental deaths in 2005, which translates to a crude rate of .27 (out of 295895897)
While 789 is definitely an uncomfortable number when talking about fatal accidents, I consider .27% to be an acceptable risk. Especially when compared to crude rates of 1.21% for drowning and 16.13 for transportation related fatalities (in fact, more children die each year in bucket related accidents than in firearm related ones).
Of greater importance than raw statistics though, is the fact that accidents are preventable. One study done by the General Accounting Office found that 84% of all firearm accidents in 1991 were caused by failure to adhere to basic safety rules (Kopel). This to me indicates that those who rarely practice, and are generally unused to firearm handling are at greater risk than those who make it a point to practice routinely. And so by ensuring that myself and those around me have received proper firearm training, and practice routinely with due diligence to safety protocols we can severely mitigate the probability of a firearm accident.
The concern that owning or carrying a firearm will result in certain behavioral changes in people is one that many gun enthusiasts scoff at, but is one which I think deserves serious consideration. A problem which exists in this consideration is that every persons reaction to firearms is different. A person who has grown up in a "gun house" for example probably won't notice any change in attitude, thoughts or behavior when picking up a gun. For others with limited firearm exposure though it can be quite a different scenario. With years of media induced iconography forming schemas in the brain prior to actually picking up a gun for the first time, it is difficult, if not impossible, for many people to wrap their hands around the grips of a pistol without experiencing a least mild Bruce Willis'esqe fantasies about what they will do with this firearm when the hordes of Cuban zombie terrorists attack their city looking for babies to turn into Muslims. Even those who have been around guns since birth seem not immune to this phenomenon as is evidenced by the presence of threads like "You have to travel 3 miles through enemy controlled territory, you can only bring two guns, which ones do you choose and why", "America has been invaded by French Canadians, which guns do you grab" and my personal favorite "The zombies are attacking, what's your plan" on virtually every pro-gun forum in existence.
I suspect, though I have no evidence for this, that it is these types of violent gun induced fantasies, which fuel the fears of many anti gun advocates. Having experienced some of these reactions themselves, and seeing evidence that most others share these types of reactions it would seem inevitable that if someone keeps a gun with them at all times, they will be looking for a way to act out these fantasies, even if that means turning mild arguments into old west style gun fights ("He had it comin sheriff, he called me yellow").
In his book, The Business of Guns in America, Tom Diaz outlines two of these concerns. He claims that civilians with guns are likely to A) use their gun in place of other avenues for avoiding trouble and B) be prone to fatal mistakes as people leap for their gun at the slightest provocation (Diaz). Of course there is also the oft shared concern that armed individuals are likely to escalate otherwise benign arguments intro lethal confrontations.
I suspect that there is anecdotal evidence out there to support each of these concerns. The first concern (that a firearm is likely to replace other avenues of avoiding trouble) strikes me as being irrefutable. As with anything, once a new option is introduced, it will at times take the place of other options. It may even eliminate the possibility of some options. For example, when running might be an otherwise viable option, it is extremely difficult to run flat out with a gun on your hip. Also the option to submit to an attacker is now confounded by the fact that rather than just walk away with your money, a robber may now be acquiring your firearm as well (a situation no gun owner wants to experience). Diaz's assertion though that these are negative consequences is highly debatable. In fact it is these very things that many feel are the positive net effect of Shall Issue laws. If the would be robber knows that a potential victim is likely to draw a weapon rather than run or submit, it changes the robbery from a low risk way to obtain money, to a very high risk one. In an interview with several incarcerated felons Kellerman and Cook found that many reported being more concerned with their potential victim being armed than they are with the police (Kellerman and Cook). This notion is corroborated by the findings of John Lott who determined through statistical analysis that violent crime (especially murder and rape) rates decline significantly after a state adopts "Shall Issue" legislation (Lott, More guns).
Also implicit in Diaz's claim that CCW will encourage people to turn to their gun rather than finding other ways to avoid trouble, is the claim that having a firearm will embolden people to enter into situations they would otherwise avoid. Though Diaz does not specify what types of situations these would be, I think it is safe to assume he is referring to people going into area's noted for being "high crime" and being willing to engage in confrontations with aggressors that they would otherwise walk away from. Again though, the implication that these are negative effects is seriously questionable. Who wants to feel that they are unsafe in certain neighborhoods at particular times? Is not anything that alleviates that concern a positive thing? Fear is the ultimate freedom denier. Anyone who is not willing to venture downtown, or ride public transportation can attest to the negative effects of fear. Fear denies people the options which should be available to them. Likewise if people always turn away from aggressors, there is little impetuous for aggressors to change their ways. If however, people find the courage to stand firm against aggressors it denies the aggressor the positive reinforcement they seek and so it becomes less likely that the aggressor will repeat those actions again (Marano, 5). Whether that courage comes from martial arts training, natural self confidence or a concealed weapon, the result is the same. By removing the fear aspect, those who prey on others lose their primary tool.
Probably the largest concern that people have regarding everyday people carrying guns though, is that those people will be more likely to use their guns in "heat of the moment" scenarios than would otherwise happen. Of course the logic of this claim is undeniable. More people with guns simply will lead to more people using their guns. On the Brady campaigns website they maintain a list of "assorted crimes and misdeeds by CCW permit holders" (Assorted Crimes). Throughout this list are accounts of CCW holders shooting their neighbors puppies, people opening fire on infedelious spouses and people succumbing to road rage and shooting at other drivers. Taken as a small sample of what is sure to be a much larger pool of evidence, it is easy to assume that a proliferation of handguns into the populace should lead us into a old west paradigm of every altercation ending with a body in the street. There is however a great deal of evidence which refutes this concern.
The Town of Kennesaw Georgia in 1982 enacted a law which required every head of household to keep and maintain a firearm (though exclusions were included for those not legally allowed to possess a firearm or those who opted not to for any reason). Rather than the incidence of arguments turning to gunplay increasing though, the opposite happened. In fact, in the 25 years since the law was enacted there has not been a single murder, and the overall crime rate, which was previously far in excess of the national average, has since declined to less than half it's previous rate (25 years). Though anecdotal in nature, this case does provide an example of how guns in the hands of civilians does not immediately (or at all) cause the culture to dissolve into anarchy. Probably the largest piece of anecdotal evidence against the "Wild Wild West" theory is the United States itself. Though many do not realize it, 37 of the 50 US states today are "shall issue" states, meaning anyone who is over the age of 21 (or 18 depending on the state) and who meets their states requirements and who applies for the permit may carry a concealed weapon.
In addition to the anecdotal evidence, significant statistical evidence exists which seems to refute the notion that permissive CCW laws will result in an increase in crimes of passion or aggravated assaults. The famous study by Lott and Mustard shows a statistically significant decrease in aggravated assault rates in counties which adopt "Shall Issue" laws (Lott, More Guns, 75-139). In fact even studies that attempt to refute the Lott-Mustard findings seem to agree on this point (Cleary and Shapiro, 9).
As counter-intuitive as the claim that more people with guns will not seriously raise the number of aggravated assaults is though, there is one potential explanation for it. James Wright in his book "Armed and Considered Dangerous" provides statistics gathered from a wide sample of incarcerated inmates (Wright, 44). From these statistics we can conclude with 95% confidence that the true mean age of first time felony conviction and incarceration is between 18.9 and 19.4. (results from a Z interval test at the 95% confidence level). Because CCW laws generally require the applicant to be over the age of 21 it follows that the vast majority of people who are likely to commit these types of crimes have already committed and been convicted for a felony which then prohibits them from obtaining a CCW license. It may be due to this fact that some studies have found the CCW holders are 5 times less likely than non CCW holders to commit crimes. In fact one study even cites that CCW holders in Florida are 3 times less likely to commit a crime than are New York City police officers (Lewis).
While I am not too concerned about a gun changing me into some sort of "shoot first, open the door later" type of maniac, and I trust in my ability to prevent a gun in my possession from accidentally killing someone, I am still somewhat concerned with the possibility that a gun I own could be stolen and used to do harm. According to one poll, almost 600,000 firearms a year are stolen from private legal owners (Mayors). Luckily this concern is easily put to rest with the simple act of purchasing a secure location to store firearms. Since most thieves don't carry grinders and dollies with them on a normal home invasion, a solid heavy safe bolted to the wall or floor provides a solid level of insurance against a firearm being stolen.
Being a concealed carrier though carries with it a different set of theft risk than just being a gun owner does though. As a concealed carrier there are inevitably times when you need to enter into areas in which firearms are not allowed, such as schools, post offices and courts as well as any business which does not allow CCW on their premises. During those times it becomes necessary to leave ones firearm in their vehicle while they are in one of those areas. While car safes are available, they are definitely cost prohibitive as well as inconvenient. Unfortunately I cannot find actual statistics for how many firearms are stolen from vehicles each year, or even how many cars are broken into each year (from which I could extrapolate my personal risk). However I do know strictly from anecdotal evidence that the risk of having ones car burgled is rather high, though the odds of this happening at a time in which I have left my personal firearm in the vehicle is of course substantially lower.
In addition to theft of firearms, another ongoing concern about civilians with guns is the perception that while trained officials can use a firearm safely, civilians simply lack the requisite training. As the Brady campaign presents, once the bullet leaves the gun whose to say it will stop only the criminal? The concern is that civilians trying to use guns responsibly may inadvertently cause more damage than they prevent. Over penetration, missed shots going astray and using a firearm against a non-threats all factor into this concern.
Certainly this concern bears consideration. Fortunately there are ways to at least mitigate if not completely counter these worries. Over penetration (the bullet going through the intended target and into a bystander) is a concern shared by both law enforcement and CCW'ers. There are ways though to prevent this. Hollow point rounds expand on entry into a soft target and so decelerate rapidly to non-lethal speeds and slower rounds reduce the probability even further. In the end it is a risk that persists, but which can be mitigated to a relatively safe degree through tactics and gear used by both officials and civilians alike.
In addition to over penetration, there exists the chance that in an armed encounter, the bullet will simply not go where you want it to go, and that sometimes this wayward 1250 fps chunk of lead will strike an unintended target. Even shooting at paper targets in a peaceful controlled environment can be challenging. Now add in low light conditions, racing heart rates, adrenaline, moving targets and trying to avoid incoming fire, and the odds of hitting what you are aiming at drops significantly. It drops so low in fact that according to the New York Police department statistics, out of 364 shots aimed at people by police officers in 2006, only 103 hit their target (Lott, Hit Rates). Unfortunately no comparable statistic exists showing the standard hit rate for CCW holders, but one can assume that since the average CCW holders has (presumably but debatably) less training than an NYPD officer does, that their hit rate should be substantially less.
So undoubtedly the issue of CCW holders hurting innocent bystanders while using their weapons defensively should be a substantial problem. Oddly though in all my research I could not find a single reliable statistic detailing how often CCW holders inadvertently hurt or kill a bystander while attempting to stop a threat. Even the Brady campaign in their list of crimes and misdeeds by CCW holders contains not a single example of this happening (actually there is one alleged case, but it was dropped for lack of evidence) (Assorted Crimes) The only possible conclusion I can reach based on this lack of evidence is that though it is always a concern, it simply hasn't happened yet.
Perhaps one reason that accidents like that are so rare is because personally owned handguns are in fact very rarely fired in self defense. In 2007 there were only 198 cases of justifiable homicide with a firearm (FBI.gov) and only 906 total from 2003-2007, for an annual mean of 181.2. In fact, it seems that in the vast majority of cases where a firearm is used in self defense it is never fired. Though it is impossible to accurately determine how often firearms are used effectively in this manner (because it is likely that the majority of "brandishing" cases go unreported), we can surmise the number through a variety of means. In a study by McDowall and Wiersema, based on the national crime victimization study, it has been determined that guns are used in self defense an average of 64,615 times per year. Other reports cite even greater numbers of defensive handgun use, from 1.5 to 3.4 million times per year (Lott, Media). Even using the lower number, if we then remove the mean number of justifiable homicides it leaves us with a total of 64,434 non-lethal uses of firearms per year. Of course some of that number goes towards events in which the gun was fired but did not result in a fatality, however it is clear that cases in which a firearm is used defensively, but does not result in a fatality, far outweighs those times in which they are used fatally. In fact, by comparing the statistic of defensive firearm use per year to the average rate of firearm homicides per year of 11,645 (CDC.gov) we see that firearms are used in a defensive non-fatal manner over 5.5 times as often as they are in criminal homicides.
"A CCW holder should have a greater percentage of hits than a police officer. Most civilian defensive shootings are full frontal in nature with no barriers to overcome and at a distance of 10 feet or less.
Many police shootings are at slightly greater distances with barriers that must be defeated before the subject is impacted by the bullet. (Windshields, sheet metal, wood, etc.) All of these have an effect on the trajectory of the round when struck. So many police rounds strike these barriers and either deviate off course or never make it through at all----these shots all count as misses".
So though it is likely that law enforcement officials will have more training than the average CCW holder, the consequences of this disparity are not monstrous. Though everyone needs to be concerned with the bullet after it leaves the gun, there has not yet been a single case in which a CCW holder injured a bystander in a justified shooting, and the evidence suggests that this should never become a significant problem
For myself, after evaluating the all the evidence at hand I have come to the following conclusions;
- The risk of accidents from owning/carrying a firearm is small and controllable through diligent care.
- The risk of using a firearm and inadvertently hurting an innocent bystander is so small it is virtually a non-factor and can be mitigated through training and proper choice in gear.
- The risk of a firearm of mine being stolen and used to do harm is considerable, but ultimately small enough that I consider it to be acceptable.
- The risk of a firearm inducing negative behavioral changes in me is unlikely and controllable.
- The overall effect of civilians being allowed to carry guns is a positive one.
- The cost of needing a firearm and being without one far outweighs the above concerns.
The evidence has shown me that firearms in the hands of good people do far more good than harm. Good people, able to defend themselves and others, are ultimately a benefit to all. While this is not a decision I feel everyone should make, I am glad it is one which is available to me, and I shall exercise it with care.
Works Cited
"25 Years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA". World Net Daily. April 19 2007. October 29 2008 < http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LndvcmxkbmV0ZGFpbHkuY29tL25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZS5hc3A/QVJUSUNMRV9JRD01NTI4OA==>
ABC News. "Fewer Guns, Less Crime?" 03 May 2007. Online Video Clip. 28 November 2008.< http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vYWJjbmV3cy5nby5jb20vVmlkZW8vcGxheWVySW5kZXg/aWQ9MzEzMjI1NQ==>
Associated Press. "Raw Video, Vicious Hammer Attack on Subway" 10 September 2008. Online Video Clip. YouTube.com. October 15 2008 <http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9SWZsOUZxcEwxbU0=>
"Assorted Crimes and Misdeeds by CCW lisceneses". BradyCampaign.org. 2008. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. 11 November 2008 <>
Bird, Chris. Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense. San Antonio: Privateer Publications, 2006.
(Name Omited by request). Re: "A Refute to some Brady Claims." PM to the Author via TaurusArmed.net. 11 December 2008.
CDC. Center for Disease Control. "WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports", 1999 – 2005. 05 December 2008 <http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd2ViYXBwLmNkYy5nb3Yvc2Fzd2ViL25jaXBjL21vcnRyYXRlMTBfc3kuaHRtbA==>. Search parameters, unintentional, firearm, US, 0-17, 2005.
Cleary, Jim and Emily Shapiro. "The Effects of "Shall Issue Concealed Carry Laws: A Literature Review". Information Brief, Minnesota House of Representatives, Research Department. February 1999. 01 December 2008. <http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmhvdXNlLmxlZy5zdGF0ZS5tbi51cy9ocmQvcHVicy9jb25jYXJyeS5wZGY=>
Diaz, Tom. Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America. New York: The New Press. 1999
Donohue, John. "The Final Bullet in the body of the More Guns Less Crime hypothesis". Criminology & Public Policy 2 (2003) 397-409.
"Fact Sheets: Gun Violence Statistics and Studies". BradyCampaign.org. 26 March 1999. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. 11 November 2008 < http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJyYWR5Y2FtcGFpZ24ub3JnL2lzc3Vlcy9ndnN0YXRzLw==>
FBI.gov Federal Bureau of Investigations. "Justifiable Homicide By Weapon Type". 11 November 2008 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html
KC3. "Examples Of Armed Citizens Coming To The Aid Of Officers In Peril". 05 December 2008. <> . Kentucky Coalition for Concealed Carry.
Kellerman, Arthur and Phillip J Cook. "Armed And Dangerous. Guns in American Homes". Lethal Imagination. Ed. Michael A. Bellesiles. New York: New York University Press. 1999
Kopel, David B. "Children Are Not at Risk from Handgun Violence." Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mt. Hood Community College. 11 Dec. 2008 .
Lewis, Scott W. “Will Allowing Concealed Carry on Campus Lead to More Violence?” Students for Concealed Carry On Campus. 21 April 2008. 02 November 2008. < http://www.concealedcampus.org/more_violence.pdf>
Lott, John Jr. More Guns Less Crime, understanding crime and gun control laws. Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. 2nd ed. 2000
---- “Police Hit Rates as Low as 17%” [Weblog Entry.] John Lott’s Website.16 December 2007. 2 October 2008 < http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/12/police-hit-rates-on-shootings-as-low-as.html>
---- “Media Bias Against Guns” Hillsdale College Imprimis Issue. 2008. 6 October 2008. Hillsdale College. < https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=09>
Marano, Hara Estroff. “Big Bad Bully”. Psychology Today October 1995. 5 December 2005 < http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=19950901-000020&page=1>
Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “Reporting Lost and Stolen Guns”. 02 December 2008 <http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/local/lost-stolen.shtml>
McDowall, D and B Wiersema. “The incidence of defensive firearm use by US crime victims, 1987 through 1990”. American Journal of Public Health. 84. (1994) < http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/12/1982>
Wright, James D and Peter H Rossi. Armed and Considered Dangerous. A Survey of felons and Their Firearms. New Jersey. Aldine Transaction, 1986.
