Nationally syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz, Assistant Editorial Page Editor of the Las Vegas, Nevada Review -Journal, is the designated recipient of the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award for January.

In nominating Suprynowicz for the Award, John Michael Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, noted that "with this months Award, we enter not only a new year, but a new century and a new millennium as well.

"There has been a lot of unwarranted editorial abuse heaped upon law-abiding firearm owners over the years from people in the media. It is noteworthy, though, that there are, in fact, a number of people in the media who not only do not fit the anti-gun stereotype but who do, in fact, look at the issue from an objective vantage point and see the value of gun ownership on the part of lawabiding citizens. Such a journalist is Vin Suprynowicz, whose writings indicate he is most worthy of this Award."

In a more serious vein, though, Suprynowicz reported recently that Donna Hernandez, after going to court and getting protection orders against her former husband, "Was found stabbed and strangled in her home. Her ex-husband is now in jail, facing murder charges."

He reported also that Maureen McConaha and Brenda Denise James, after obtaining protective orders against their former boyfriends, also were found murdered, and that the ex-boyfriends

are awaiting murder prosecutions in those cases, too.

Suprynowicz writes that "while court-issued protective orders are 'a good tool for law enforcement, they don't stop a bullet or a knife, and we need to make sure everyone knows that,' offers Clark County (Nevada) Domestic Violence Commissioner Patricia Donninger.

"'We have to find a better way to protect people like Donna Hernandez,' says a frustrated District Judge Nancy Saitta.

"But that better way has long been available. God may have made women, but Colonel Colt made women equal, and carrying the tool he invented remains the constitutional right of every American.

"The problem is, so far as can be determined, Donna Hernandez, Maureen McConaha, and Brenda Denise James did not do everything they could to protect themselves and their children. They did not buy and carry handguns, and acquire the skill to use them.

"Police cannot provide an armed bodyguard for every woman who's been threatened. Therefore, police should actively recommend that such women acquire appropriate, effective weapons for self-defense, and the minimal training necessary to handle them safely.

"In fact, if any 'background check' or 'concealed carry permit' paperwork delays stand in the way of a woman who holds such a valid' protection order' and wishes to acquire a handgun, our state lawmakers, and particularly U. S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, a proponent of women's rights and an avowed supporter of the Second Amendment, should immediately introduce legislation to provide for an instant waiver of any such waiting periods or bureaucratic delays, authorizing the immediate, legal placement of a handgun in any such woman's purse.

"Those with an irrational fear of firearms...will whine that 'a woman is in greater danger if she has a gun; the assailant will just take it away and use it on her.'

"In fact, Gary Kleck, Professor of Criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, examined the statistical evidence for that concern in his book, 'Targeting Guns!

"Guns are taken away from their owner and used by an assailant in fewer than one percent of defensive gun uses, Professor Kleck determined. Nor is there any indication that more widespread gun ownership would turn our neighborhoods into 'shooting galleries! Dr. Kleck also found that in more than 90 percent of defensive gun uses, the weapon wasn't even fired.

"'If s one of the great lies of the antigun people, that people are so incompetent that they're going to have their guns taken away from them,' says David Kopel, Research Director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado and author of the book, 'Guns: Who Should Have Them?'

"In fact, if the authorities would send out a notice that the victim is now armed, along with the court 'keep-away' order, most of these attacks might never occur at all."

Suprynowicz graduated in 1972 from Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut with a degree in Art and a concentration in Filmmaking. After working for several years as a non-union film editor, lighting director, playwright, disc jockey and sporting goods salesman, Suprynowicz went to work the Hartford Advocate.

He went on to become a star reporter at the daily Willimantic Chronicle, Wire Editor of the Norwich Bulletin, Managing Editor of the Northern Virginia Sun, and Founder and Publisher of the Providence Eagle.

He was named three times to the Golden Dozen, the top 12 weekly editorial writers in the United States and Canada, by the International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors.

Suprynowicz finally moved to Phoenix, Arizona in 1986, where he helped found the West Valley View. He moved to Las Vegas in 1991 to take his current position.

His twice-a-week syndicated political column runs in about 20 newspapers around the country.

His first book, "Send in the Waco Killers," published last year by Huntington Press, scored in the top 10 of non-fiction books selected by the readers in the Random House on-line poll.

Bob Novak, the celebrated co-host of CNN's evening "Crossfire"program who celebrates his birthday this month, is the designated recipient of the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award for February.

In nominating Novak for the award, John Michael Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, noted that the natioally-syndicated columnist "never hesitates to stick up for the individual Second Amendment civil rights of law-abiding American firearm owners when the gun control issue comes to the fore in public discussion or debate.

"Whether it's in his columns or on the 'Crossfire' program or on the 'Capital Gang,' a CNN weekly telecast, Bob always can be counted onto pulverize in the most articulate and devastating manner the arguments for more and more restrictive gun control advanced by the statist nerds he confronts.

"Over the years, I've run into Bob a number of times in Washington, and have found him to be a most gracious and engaging conversationalist, despite what his critics, who call him the 'Prince of Darkness,' say about him.

"Robert David Sanders Novak, a stalwart defender of the right to keep and bear arms, an accomplished journalist and a gentleman of sterling character, is most worthy of this award."

Bob is the author of a number of books. In his latest, "Completing the Revolution, A Vision for Victory in 2000," he takes leaders of the Republican Party to task for not having the courage to stickup for the principles of the party, including the right to keep and bear arms. He writes that Republicans, if they are to maintain their majority congressional status, have got to stick up for our gun rights, regardless of what the majority of advocacy journalists say and write.

In a chapter on "The Courage to Be Republicans," Novak recalls the vacillation of the Republican congressional leadership last year when confronted wit media and Democrat demands for gun control after the Columbine shootings.

He writes that political courage require a "willingness to charge full speed into the teeth of conventional wisdom an political correctness. But it is also something quite different. Such courage is no an isolated act or one that necessarily means the end of a political career. It does mean the determination to stand by what the Republican party has come to mean no matter if it collides with the caution and stop signals flashed by polls and focus groups.

Michael D. Yacino of East Douglas, Massachusetts is the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Awardee for June.

In presenting the Award to Mike in Massachusetts, Alan M. Gottlieb, CCRKBA Chairman, noted that Yacino, “through his loyal, untiring and outstanding commitment to the individual Second Amendment civil right is a genuine living beacon. For his courage and steadfastness as well as for his many other outstanding qualities, he absolutely is most deserving of this Award.”

Born in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1942, Mike since 1977 has been Executive Director and Legislative Agent of the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL).

Each year, he drafts, files and monitors legislation on behalf of Massachusetts gun owners. He determines which of the 9000 bills filed each year would affect gun owners, and prepares testimony on these for legislative committees recommending either passage or defeat. He works with individual legislators to answer their questions. He is responsible for implementing programs and policies as authorized by GOAL’s Board of Directors, and for directing the organization’s office and personnel. He hosts GOAL’s weekly radio program, The GOAL Line.

Yacino recently lashed out at the Massachusetts Attorney General, Thomas Reilly, after Reilly announced his office will begin using its consumer protection authority to enforce the most comprehensive handgun control “safety” regulations in the nation, banning the sale of cheap handguns and requiring all handguns sold in the state to have safety devices supposedly to keep children from firing them.

“Gun owners across the state,” said Yacino, “are demanding to know why state government is involving them in an internal turf war between state agencies. Consumers have a right to expect a single set of clear standards from their government, but that’s not what gun owners are getting with announcements from the Attorney General’s office.

“Currently, firearm manufacturers have to comply with strict federal and state regulations. Retail firearm dealers in Massachusetts must have both a state and a federal license to sell guns. The state legislature passed a strict law in 1998 that created testing standards and delegated the regulatory oversight to the Executive Office of Public Safety. That office has indicated that regulations have been drafted, with the assistance of the Gun Control Advisory Board, and expect to have a public hearing…

“The Attorney General and his predecessor have failed to demonstrate any causal relationship between these restrictions on the manufacture of firearms and reduced firearm accidents. They have failed to show the cause and effect of politically designed handguns and reductions in crime.

“The truth is that firearm accidents are the lowest since 1903, despite the fact that the population and number of guns have increased more than four-fold. The accidents have been decreasing strictly due to educational programs sponsored by groups such as the Gun Owners Action League.”

A 1962 graduate of the Wentworth Institute with an Associate Degree in civil engineering who served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1962-1965, Mike for the past 20 years has been Treasurer of the Gun Owners’ Political Action Committee. He helps determine, with others, which candidates deserve support, and oversees mailings to concerned citizens in a candidate’s district.

For the past 20 years he also has been Treasurer of the Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Junior Conservation Camp, Inc. He’s responsible for overseeing all financial aspects of this two-week camp for children aged 14-17, and for ensuring that the program gets proper support from related government agencies.

Since 1977, he has been publisher of THE MESSAGE, and is responsible for the content of this 28-page monthly news magazine. The Outdoor Message Cooperative, Inc., of which he is Treasurer, publishes the periodical. Organized sportsmen and women throughout New England cooperate in the joint venture.

Since 1990, Mike, a founding member of the Board of Directors of the non-profit, tax-exempt Goal Foundation, Inc., has been the group’s Secretary/Treasurer. He’s been responsible for overseeing the financial well-being of the corporation whose main purpose is the education and training of the public in the safe use and handling of firearms, providing public information and sanctioning the organized competitive shooting sports in Massachusetts.

Mike also has been Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the Governor’s Alliance Against Drugs, Inc., Treasurer and then Chairman of the Massachusetts Neighborhood Crime Watch Commission, Director of the National Rifle Association, President of the Northeastern States Council of Sportsmen, and Founder of the Blackstone Valley Junior Sportsmen.

A court-qualified expert on firearms legislative history who is licensed by the federal government and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to buy and sell firearms, rifles, shotguns and ammunition, Mike is a member of the Notaries Public in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a member of the New England Outdoor Writers Association, a Certified NRA Firearms Instructor able to teach basic rifle, basic pistol, basic shotgun and Home Firearms Responsibility and Practical Firearms Programs, a Century Member of the Boy Scouts of America, and a member of the Ruger Collectors Association and Massachusetts Arms Collectors.

Robert E. Moffitt, Ph.D., of Severna Park, Maryland, is the designated recipient of the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award for July.

In nominating Moffitt for the Award, John Michel Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said, “I’ve known Bob for decades and he always has been a staunch proponent of the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms. A true intellectual and eminent scholar, Bob is the son of a Philadelphia police detective and he comes from a family of police officers. He knows for sure the truth of what he speaks when he maintains the right of law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves against the violent thugs who prey upon the innocent. His statements in a recent publication show he is most deserving of this Award.”

Dr. Moffitt is the Director of Domestic Policy at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D. C. He is the chief author of a Heritage Foundation issue report on “Crime, Making American Safer” in the Foundation Issues 2000 Candidate’s Briefing Book series.

In a section on Gun Control and Crime, Moffitt and co-author David B. Muhlhausen note that “in the aftermath of shocking public school shootings, proposals to restrict the use and availability of firearms have increased. Advocates of gun control often portray strict firearm legislation as an effective means to curb crime. But serious policymakers should determine whether strict gun control laws actually reduce violent crime rates.

“To shed light on this question, The Heritage Foundation Center for Date Analysis analyzed the crime rates of all 50 states and the District of Columbia as published in the FBI’s 1997 UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS, as well as their handgun license or permit laws in 1997. Licenses or permitting requirements for the purchase and ownership of firearms have two main purposes: restricting who can own or purchase a handgun and requiring owners to receive training on how to operate a handgun safely.”

Moffitt indicates that, while many factors cause differences in crime, analysis demonstrates that “states with permit or license restrictions on the purchase and ownership of handguns in 1997 had an average violent crime rate of 654.1 per 100,000, while states without such restrictions had a much lower violent crime rate – 482.9 per 100,000. In other words, the violent crime rate in states with these restrictions was 35.5 percent higher than the violent crime rate in states without such restrictions.

“Some 95 percent of the states without handgun permit/license requirements had a violent crime rate between 399.6 per 100,000 and 566.2 per 100,000. The mean violent crime rate for states with license/permit requirements was 654.1 per 100,000, well above this range.

“Intuitively, if licensing and permitting restrictions on handguns were an effective means of reducing crime, states with such policies would have lower crime rates. As this analysis shows, it is not at all obvious that handgun restrictions do indeed reduce crime rates.

“Largely ignored in the gun control debate is the significant number of defensive gun uses per year by citizens against criminals.

“According to researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, citizens use their firearms to thwart criminal attacks anywhere from 670,000 to 1.5 million times per year. Further, the researchers found that only one in 1,000 instances of gun-carrying resulted in a violent gun crime.”

Moffitt notes that a review of the scientific literature on gun buy-backs conducted by the University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice in 1997 indicates that gun buy-back programs operated in Seattle and St. Louis have not been accompanied by a reduction in crime.

“There are several reasons why gun buy-backs do not reduce crime,” Moffitt states. “First, these programs often attract sellers from outside the city. Second, they attract firearms that are not in use. For instance, the guns are often left untouched and forgotten in the home until the city offers cash for them. Third, potential criminals may use the payment from the gun buy-back to purchase a better, more lethal firearm. Perhaps most important, gun buy-back programs simply ignore the criminal’s economic incentives: The value of a firearm to a criminal exceeds the small amount of money offered. Simply put, the economic value of a firearm to a robber over the course of his criminal career will outweigh the city’s payment. Policymakers should concentrate limited funds in programs with a demonstrated track record of success.”

“State lawmakers can enact laws that make all criminals on probation and parole subject to the ‘nonconsensual’ search for guns or other weapons as a condition of that probation or parole. Stopping and frisking such persons, especially in ‘hot spot’ high-crime areas, would be an innovative way to combat gun violence. Local police officials also could create specialized units that combine surveillance and sting strategies to catch the offender in the act of crime. The resulting evidence is stronger than arrests made after the fact, thus increasing the odds of the offender being imprisoned.”

Dr. Moffitt has earned three degrees in political science, his Bachelors from LaSalle University in Philadelphia, and his Masters and Doctorate from the University of Arizona, where he graduated with Distinction.

He and his wife Barbara are the parents of four children.

U. S. Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina is the designated recipient of the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award for August.

In nominating the federal lawmaker for the Award, John Michael Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said, “I have known Congressman Jones since he came to the United States House of Representatives over five years ago. He has been a reliable supporter in Congress of the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms. He most certainly is deserving of this distinction.”

In the ongoing attempts by the Clinton-Gore Administration to promote legislation regarding gun shows, gun locks, gun magazines, gun dealers, gun tracing, gun licenses, gun prosecutions, gun safety courses, guns in schools and guns in public housing, the Cox News Service recently featured an interview with Congressman Jones regarding the controversy, noting that he for one did not see any “common sense” in the Clinton-Gore Administration proposals.

“People in my district have great respect for the Bible and the Constitution,” Jones told the Service. “They have the belief that if they are law-abiding citizens they have the right to purchase a gun and hunt.”

Jones said he does not think he could support the Clinton-Gore Administration’s proposal to require background checks at gun shows or to require safety locks on handguns.

“I hate to say it,” he said, “but I have to be leery of any proposal from this Administration. I think too many times these proposals are made for political gain.”

Jones also said that his constituents are very worried about gun control and believe the proposals punish honest citizens.

He said he has attended several gun shows in Greenville, North Carolina and in Jacksonville, North Carolina. People there are collectors, not criminals, he said.

In a statement prepared especially for POINT BLANK, Congressman Jones declared “I have always been an ardent supporter of our Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The citizens of Eastern North Carolina, like those across the country, have a great respect for the Constitution. With the recent tragedies, it is easy to place the blame on guns and their accessibility, rather than on the person who committed the crime. Although I do believe that gun owners must be responsible for the use and care of their guns, I do not want to see law-abiding gun owners penalized for the actions of reckless criminals.

“Let me assure you that I will continue to fight for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Congressman Jones is a co-sponsor of the proposed Citizens’ Self-Defense Act, H.R. 347, by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, which has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

This measure, if enacted into law, would protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

The Jones co-sponsored measure includes a list of findings, noting, for instance, that police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens.

It states that the courts have ruled consistently that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d I (D.C. App. 1981), for instance, the court stated: “Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”

The measure states that citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, noting, for instance, that every year more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals, or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

It notes also that, of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off his or her attacker.

The bill would provide that a person who is not prohibited by federal law, Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms, meaning rifles, shotguns and handguns, for security, and to use firearms in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury, in defense of family in the course of commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person’s family, and in defense of the person’s home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.

Congressman Jones also is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1032, by Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers of firearms for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Now in his third term, Jones serves as a member of the Committees of Armed Services, Resources and Banking and Financial Services. He is Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness.

In nominating Ms. Chavez for the Award, John Michael Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, noted that “Linda recently demonstrated publicly her commitment to the right to keep and bear arms. She suffered unwarranted public criticism and even ridicule as a result of her principled stand. She did not back down and continued to assert her principles. She certainly is most deserving of this Award.”

On May 13, on the Public Broadcasting Service’s television talk show, “To the Contrary,” the show’s host, Bonnie Erbe, spoke out in support of the anti-gun Million Mom March.

Chavez, at the time a regular panelist on the show, broke ranks with the reigning orthodoxy as espoused by Erbe. Linda announced she recently bought a gun at a gun show.

“If you’re someone like me,” said Chavez, 52, “who lives out in a rural area – if someone breaks into my house and wants to murder or rape me or steal all of my property, it’ll take half an hour for a policeman to get to me.”

Erbe, angered, said to Chavez, “if you look at the statistics, I would bet that you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning, Linda, than living where you live, and at your age, being raped.”

After that incident, Linda, who lives in Loudoun County, Virginia, resigned from the show and sent its producer statistics that showed she indeed has a far better chance of being raped than felled by lightning.

When National Review’s Web site ran an article on the controversy, Erbe responded with a series of e-mails to Chavez, calling her an “overgrown Catholic school girl” and suggesting “you get into therapy. Otherwise you’re going to continue to be miserable and in denial the rest of your life.”

Chavez said she has had it with the program.

In a nationally syndicated column last September, Linda wrote, “I purchased my first revolver some 25 years ago, after my husband was mugged on the streets of Washington, D. C. The only time I had occasion to use it to protect myself, I couldn’t get to it in time. A young male intruder snuck into my house through a door carelessly left unlocked. He hid in a corner of my front hall while I was putting my newborn son down for a nap in the bassinet in my living room.

“Luckily, I saw the man out of the corner of my eye as I walked toward the kitchen, but the gun was upstairs, with a trigger lock on it. Without letting the intruder know I’d seen him, I walked directly to the kitchen, picked up the phone, and called the police. Only then did I turn to face the young man, all six feet four inches of him, looming over me, now standing in the middle of the living room.

“I have no idea what his intentions were. As soon as I informed him the police were on their way, he acted as if I had insulted him grievously and calmly walked out the front door through which he’d entered. When he hit the sidewalk, he began running. The police came a few minutes later, but never caught him, despite my careful, detailed description.

“I sometimes wonder what I would have done if my gun had been nearby. I like to think I would have remained calm – even with a gun in hand – and done pretty much what I did without one, which was to summon help from the police. Oddly, even the knowledge that I had a gun upstairs probably emboldened me not to scream when I saw the man lurking in my hall. One of the more careful studies of the subject, by University of Chicago professor John Lott, suggests that some two million crimes are averted each year because the potential victim is armed…

“It would be wonderful if we could pass a law that kept guns out of the hands of murderers and other criminals. But I don’t know of one that could, short of a total ban on all firearms in private possession, which would require repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution and confiscating the more than 200 million guns now in private hands in the United States.

“The prospect of more mass shootings is frightening, but so is the idea of the government attempting to seize every privately owned gun. Even if it were possible for the government to commandeer every gun in the country, do we really want the assault on civil liberties such a plan would entail? Prohibiting guns today would be about as successful as prohibiting alcohol was in the ‘20s.

“I hope I never have to use my gun for self-protection. But living as I now do, in an isolated rural area, I can’t count on the police to come to my rescue if I ever encounter another intruder. So long as there are criminals out there, I feel safer knowing that I can protect myself.”

Born June 17, 1947 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Linda married Christopher Gersten on June 15, 1967, received her BA from the University of Colorado in 1970, pursued a doctoral program at UCLA 1970-1972, and became the mother of three, David, Pablo and Rudy.

Linda, who served as Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1983-1985, and Director of Public Liaison at the White House, 1985, was the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Maryland in 1986 but lost to Barbara Mikulski in the general election.

She was President of U.S. English from August, 1987 to October, 1988, and, from 1989 to 1994, Director of the Center for the New American Community at the Manhattan Institute. In 1995, Linda founded the Center for Equal Opportunity, a non-profit, public policy research organization, which publishes studies and holds conferences on race, ethnicity, immigration and assimilation.

A political commentator since 1987, Linda writes a weekly column for Creators Syndicate, which appears in newspapers in Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington, D. C. and elsewhere. Her articles have appeared also in the Reader’s Digest, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, and National Review among others. She is a regular guest on various television programs, including the McLaughlin Group, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline and other programs.

Jaime David Sneider, the Editorial Page Editor of the Columbia University Daily Spectator in New York City, is the designated recipient of the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award for October.

In nominating Sneider for the Award, John Michael Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, stated that, “during this period of anti-gun ‘political correctness’ throughout the elite establishment, and especially at the university level, it is encouraging and heart-warming to realize that there are students at that level who have the courage to buck the establishment and to stand up for the traditional rights of law-abiding citizens. Such a student is Jamie Sneider, who writes in a most articulate manner in defense of the traditional, individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. He is especially on target when he punctures gun grabbers’ arguments regarding firearms and young people.”

In a recent article, Columbia’s Sneider, a junior majoring in history, recalled that “a 13-year-old boy entered his school cafeteria July 17 and discharged one bullet into the air. No one was injured. This seemingly trivial piece of news was nonetheless published in many major newspapers, including The New York Times and the Seattle Times, and exploited by numerous gun control advocates such as Handgun Control that catalog news stories in which guns are used with malicious intent.

“Although one would never know from listening to Sarah Brady or Hillary Clinton, who both capitalize on gun deaths and inflated statistics, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) latest data reveal youth gun deaths decreased by 10 percent.

“The number of deaths dropped from 4,223 in 1997 to 3,792 in 1998. Of course, for the same reasons as in the past, this information is still quite misleading. CDC defines children as people between the ages of 0-19. Given that our legal system does not consider persons above age 18 to be minors and routinely prosecutes adolescents of 14 as adults, it seems ridiculous for members of society universally regarded as having reached maturity to be subsequently classified as children.”

The Columbia University editor, who graduated from Scarsdale High School in Scarsdale, New York, notes further that, “upon reading the report, one finds the largest number of firearm deaths occurs in the key 15-19 age category. These victims are mostly male, so it is not surprising that males are the victims of more than 83 percent of all gun deaths, making their deaths an essential component in creating the illusion of a ‘gun epidemic.’

“Many of the ‘common sense’ measures proposed by the Mom March that claimed one million participants, but only got 75,000, are not targeted at preventing murder. Instead, these proposals, which often include trigger locks, are a solution in search of a problem. The gun control advocates use rhetoric like ‘stop the gun violence’ but then aim at preventing a very small number of accidents and suicides committed by minors. The bulk of deaths occurring in the 15-19 age group are the result of gang violence; typically, these ‘children’ do not buy their guns legally. (Gang members have come, inevitably, to the same conclusion as Rosie O’Donnel’s personal security squad: If there is a trigger lock on the gun, it cannot be used with the immediacy that is frequently required to kill someone.)”

Continuing his analysis, Sneider writes that, “if one considers only those individuals between the ages of 0-14, a more realistic picture emerges of the danger posed by firearms. Gun accidents compose slightly more than two percent of the total number of accidental deaths in this age group. To provide some context for the number of children who die from guns, just consider that while 2,566 kids died from motor vehicle accidents, 1,003 accidentally drowned, 661 accidentally suffocated to death, and 608 died from accidental burns, only 121 died in accidents involving guns. In fact, unintentional falls among 1-14 year olds resulted in 120 deaths a year…

“Despite the claims of gun control advocates such as Mrs. Brady, who routinely cites the number of suicides committed with firearms as evidence of the need for further regulation, the 1998 CDC data show more gun laws and trigger locks probably will not thwart a depressed 14-year-old either.

“Firearms were used in 47 percent of the 324 suicides among 0-14 year-olds in 1998. But an equal number of 0-14-year-olds committed suicide by suffocating themselves; suicides such as these demonstrate objects found in virtually every American home can be used effectively in achieving the same

end. Gun control zealots ought to remember that guns do not motivate young people to kill themselves, and gun laws will not prevent them either – regulation will likely encourage people to use alternative means in committing suicide, many of which, it is worth noting, are more dangerous to the public at large.”

Sneider concludes, “many supporters of gun control argue that if a law saves just one child it is worth ratifying. These people generally overlook the enormous positive role gun ownership has in thwarting criminal behavior. If those fighting for gun control truly want to help the children, however, they would consider taking up a different cause. As the above data demonstrate, many of the problems receiving little attention from the media and public at large pose a much greater danger to children than guns.”

Author David Horowitz of Los Angeles, California is the designated recipient of the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award for November.

In nominating Horowitz for the Award, John Michael Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said, “we welcome converts to the gun rights movement in the United States. Our candidate this month, a one-time leader of the New Left in the 1960s, grew disillusioned with the consequences of radicalism in America and abroad, and by the 1980s, his political about-face was complete.

“David Horowitz knows our opposition from the inside and how serious that opposition is regarding the destruction of traditional American values, including the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. His writings can be most instructive for all of us as we struggle to preserve the traditional American right to keep and bear arms. He certainly is most deserving of this Award.”

Horowitz views the assault on the right to keep and bear arms as part of an all-out assault on American values, as part of a revolutionary commitment to change the United States from a nation in which government derives its powers from the consent of the governed to one in which the governed derive whatever rights they have at a given moment from the authority of the government.

He writes that believers in this statist ideology use any means to advance their cause and that those of us on the receiving end must wake up to these facts of political life and battle hard in order to defeat them.

In describing the reaction of the statists to the Columbine school shootings in Colorado, for instance, he notes, “there are 20,000 gun laws already on the books, 17 of which were violated by the Columbine killers. What would one more law accomplish that these 20,000 could not, especially one that would merely mandate background checks on buyers at gun shows, as the new one did? Is there any evidence that these shows are the sites of a significant number of criminal purchases, or that such legislation would have any effect on armed crime? The Brady Bill – the most celebrated triumph of gun control advocates in the last decade – has been violated on more than a quarter of a million occasions since its adoption, but the Clinton Administration (although a fierce advocate of the legislation) has only prosecuted a handful of the violators. Is there any more than political smoke at issue in this debate?

“Or is there any correlation at all between stringent registration laws and reduced gun deaths? A social scientist named John Lott has published a study showing that communities in which citizens are armed have lower incidences of gun violence than communities where guns are relatively absent. In places like New York, where gun violence has been reduced and the murder rate has been cut by a phenomenal 60 percent, the reason appears to be aggressive police tactics, which have come under fire from many of the same liberals who think gun control is the answer. Do the people who hate Chuck Heston adore New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani? Hardly.

“I do not intend this as an argument for or against the gun legislation that was proposed and that failed in the wake of Columbine. It is merely a case for sobriety in assessing the positions of the disputants. The gun legislation proposed after Columbine may or may not have been worthy. But any difference it might make is so insignificant that it could not justify the foam-at-the-mouth response of its proponents or the stigmas they have placed on those, like Heston, who disagree with them about it.

“Why are liberals so compulsively intolerant? It is not a question that can be casually dismissed…

“George Stephanopoulos’ memories of his days in the White House capture a similar moment in the command center of the political process. Before impeachment irretrievably tainted the atmosphere of the Clinton White House, Stephanopoulos and the President were discussing an open congressional seat and the prospect of an upcoming special election. ‘It’s Nazi time,’ Clinton remarked to Stephanopoulos, by which he meant time to get back to campaigning against Republicans. Two years later, at the outset of another campaign, Clinton told Dick Morris: ‘You have to understand, Bob Dole is evil, what he wants is evil.’ This of a war hero who was a consensus builder in his years as Senate Majority Leader.”

David Horowitz’ latest book, “The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits,” was published by Spence Publishing Company in Dallas, Texas. He also is the author of such best-selling books as “Hating Whitey” and “Radical Son,” and, with Peter Collier, co-author of “Destructive Generation. He is President of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and is Editor of the journal “Heterodoxy.”

In nominating the retired medical school professor for the Award, John Michael Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, stated that, “during these times, when gun grabbers are using every trick in the book to undermine the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms, it is fortunate for our side that reputable professionals of the caliber of Dr. Stolinsky take the time and have the courage to step forward in a scholarly attempt to rectify the potential harm caused by this trickery.

“One of the main battles these dates is fought around the attempt of some to paint gun ownership as something inherently unacceptable from a medical point of view. Consequently, when men such as Dave Stolinsky come out and do battle on this front, it is most encouraging from the point of view of individual civil liberties, especially the right to keep and bear arms. He certainly is most deserving of this Award.”

In the November/December 2000 issue of Medical Sentinel, which is a Special Issue on Doctors and Guns (Part I) – A Failure of the Public Health Model, there is a closely written article on America: The Most Violent Nation? by Dr. Stolinski.

Included in the article is a table giving suicide and homicide rates for all 86 nations for which data are available.

“Regarding suicide,” writes Dr. Stolinsky, a retired medical oncologist, “the U.S. is in the middle of the pack, with 35 of the 86 nations having higher rates (38 using the most recent U.S. figure). Compared to the U.S. rate of 11.9, Russia has a rate of 41.2, Hungary 32.9, Denmark 22.3, Switzerland 21.4, France 20.8, and Japan 16.7. In general, Northern and Eastern European and Asian nations tend to have high suicide rates, while countries in Southern Europe and Latin America tend to have low rates.

“Is there a relation between suicide and strictness of gun control laws? Northern European and Asian nations tend to have rates and strict laws, while Latin American nations tend to have low rates and more lax laws. Hence one could make a spurious claim that strict gun laws ‘cause’ suicides. Such a claim would ignore many relevant facts. For example, Latin countries are mainly Catholic, with severe social pressures against suicide. Still, it makes as much (or as little) sense to say that gun laws ‘cause’ suicides as that they ‘prevent’ homicides.

“The U.S. suicide rate has fluctuated between 10 and 17 for a century, with peaks in 1908 and 1932, and shows no relation to gun laws or gun availability. The current rate is below the midpoint and falling slightly. Recently suicides in the young increased. Advocates of gun laws blame the availability of guns. But suicides in older Americans decreased. The advocates ignore this fact. If something bad happens, they blame guns; if something good happens, the ignore it. And this is called ‘research.’”

Moving to the homicide data, Dr. Stolinsky, co-author of Firearms: A Handbook for Health Professionals, published by the Claremont Institute, recalls that, “America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any ‘civilized,’ ‘Western,’ ‘industrialized,’ or ‘advanced’ nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?

“Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are ‘political’ killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (10 using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and homicide rates.

“There may be a lesson here. Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise. In fact, homicide rates in some central cities, including Washington, D. C. with its ‘crack’ wars, are already as high as that of Colombia. This is not an encouraging thought.”

In his analysis, Dr. Stolinski notes also that, “the changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22 percent. This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in the 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.

“From 1991 to 1997 the U.S. homicide rate fell 30 percent. Liberals credit a strong economy and low unemployment; conservatives point to three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty. We are uncertain which factors to credit. The portion of the population made up by males aged 15 to 24, the most crime-prone group, fell by five percent, so this can account for only a fraction of the 30 percent fall in homicides.

“In any case, the fall began in 1992, while the Brady Act (waiting period for handgun buyers) and the assault weapons ban went into effect in 1994.

“Clearly, these laws cannot be credited for a fall in homicide that had begun two years earlier. Violence is often like a Rorschach test – what we read into it depends more on us than on it. This subjectivity must be avoided.”

Dr. Stolinsky enjoys guns as a hobby. He took ROTC in high school and was handed his first rifle by a master sergeant wearing the Combat Infantry Badge and the Purple Heart from World Way II.