This commentary is by Paul Manganiello of Norwich, president of the GunSenseVT Education Fund, a medical doctor who holds a master’s degree in public health.
Recently, Chris Bradley wrote a commentary for VTDigger concerning “Defensive Gun Usage.” Mr. Bradley is president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, a designated state associate of the National Rifle Association.
Mr. Bradley correctly stated that police coverage for many Vermont towns is understaffed and that the response to a 911 call might be delayed. He also correctly states that a large percentage of Vermonters have firearms in their homes, and goes on to assure us that all Vermont firearm owners know how “to safely and competently handle them.”
He then goes on to make an unqualified assumption of a causal relationship of those “factors,” relating them as to why Vermont is consistently rated one of the safest states in the nation in reference to violent and property crime. The reason, he claims, is that criminals are afraid of our gun-toting Vermonters, but that “laws” (none of which he cites) related to gun safety in general wish to disarm Vermonters and make them easy prey for those criminal elements of our society.
Mr. Bradley goes on to imply that the data on defensive gun usage, has been ignored despite the “findings” of the research outsourced by the Centers for Disease Control and PreventionCDC.
We need to take a step back and do a reality check concerning the CDC and its funding research into understanding gun violence, in hopes of reducing death and injury. In 1992, the CDC began taking a public health approach to addressing gun violence. The NRA, Mr. Bradley’s affiliate, accused the CDC of being anti-Second Amendment and persuaded the Congress to act.
Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, in 1996 was able to pass, in a spending bill, what was to become known as the Dickey Amendment, declaring no federal funds were to be utilized to “advocate or promote gun control,” It effectively eliminated funding for any research addressing gun violence.
In 2011, the Dickey Amendment was extended to include gun violence research funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was only after the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012 that President Obama urged Congress to allocate funding for gun violence prevention. Congress declined the request.
In his commentary, Mr. Bradley wrongly stated the conclusions of the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. To see the full summary, read page 15, under “Defensive Use of Guns.”
Because the NRA fought against any attempt to develop any databases on gun violence, even concerning defensive use of guns, it is not known the extent of successful implementation or the effectiveness of defensive use of guns in preventing firearm death or injury.
Putting it in context for what is known in Vermont, residences that have firearms are more likely to experience increased self-inflicted deaths; injury, death or intimidation from domestic abusers; or unintentional self-inflicted injuries, when compared with homes without firearms. Data from the Vermont Department of Heath reported 90% of deaths from firearms were due to suicide; only 10% of deaths from firearms were as a result of homicide.
I was unable to find any Vermont data on the defensive use of guns. I don’t think the NRA would have allowed that data to be collected.
Mr. Bradley’s and the NRA’s tactics are to spread disinformation, or, more plainly, outright lies. They state that gun safety advocates are against the Second Amendment and we are advocating for police to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding Vermont residents.
Many gun owners who have guns for sport, collectibles or self-protection also support sensible gun safety legislation. Mr. Bradley’s suggestion we can reduce “gun violence by strictly enforcing the firearm laws already on the books (which have only recently been passed since Sandy Hook), laws that dictate strict sentences for when a crime is committed with a gun (which is after the fact, which is not prevention) … retain cash bail … we need our legal system to aggressively prosecute these crimes, not allow them to be pled away because they are purposefully harsh.”
These are just rehashed NRA talking points that don’t address the root causes of gun violence: the wrong people possessing firearms who are a danger either to themselves or others; those not knowing how, or refusing, to use and store their firearms safely; those possessing weapons of war that shouldn’t be allowed on our streets; our state allowing gun owners to intimidate Vermonters with open carry.
Mr. Bradley needs to make a decision: Either he needs to be sincere about being part of the solution, or step aside and not continue to fuel the problem.