Our former Federal Way Municipal Court Judge wrote a letter to the editor about a column I wrote dealing with the subject of guns and domestic violence victims in which he cited certain statistical studies. See Domestic Violence, Guns & Federal Way’s Mayoral Campaigns.

One study, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, claims that “having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.”

The authors of the Journal of Medicine article indicate that prior arrests and alcohol and drug use are more critical factors than gun ownership. They admit that ownership of firearms may have occurred after the threat of harm to victims was already anticipated.

Additionally, only three urban counties (including King County) were included in the study.

Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s study on sexuality in America found that an extremely high percentage of American housewives experienced extra-marital sex. A footnote in the study defines a housewife as a female that lives with an intimate partner for a certain amount of time. Kinsey surveyed many prostitutes to obtain the statistics that launched the sexual revolution!

Likewise, the Journal of Medicine study is based only on homes that experienced a homicide but not all homes. For many homes, especially outside big urban areas, gun ownership is an aspect of a normal life- without violence, drugs and other at-risk behaviors. Thus, it is not surprising that statistics show that certain households with guns are at risk!

Imagine your sister has left her violently abusive husband and a restraining order prevents the husband from contacting her or the kids because he has promised to kill his whole family and then kill himself. Such scenarios are recited every day in local family law courts. Am I advocating for vigilante justice if I suggest to your sister that she consider obtaining a Concealed Pistol License? How am I sending an irresponsible message if I also advise a woman threatened with violence to get trained in the law and proper use of a weapon? Lawyers need to advise clients regarding all their legal options including lawful self-defense!

The distinction between self-defense and vigilante justice is not always clear to the average citizen but lawyers should understand such distinctions fairly clearly. To evaluate studies, however, we often have to follow the money. The Chicago-based Joyce Foundation is the monster in the closet when it comes to studies intended for use in gun rights cases- like DC V HELLER.

The tax-exempt Joyce Foundation provided millions for organizations that filed amicus briefs in the HELLER case, including the anti-gun Violence Policy Center which received $1.65 million from Joyce between 2003 through 2006. Joyce sent millions to Harvard University School of Public Health and made grants to Arthur Kellerman and Garen Wintemute, both of whom participated in anti-gun studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

During the same years, the Council Against Handgun Violence received $1.1 million from Joyce, Iowans for Prevention of Gun Violence received $250,000 from Joyce, the Ohio Coalition against Gun Violence received $350,000 and Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, $1.6 million. The Freedom States Alliance received $650,000. These groups are just some of the groups funded by the Joyce Foundation that signed friend of the court briefs opposing the individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the Joyce Foundation virtually paid for lawyers and bought whole issues of distinguished law reviews in order to ensure that anti-gun legal research pushed aside any contrary points of view.

All the statistics in the world grow pale, however, if you are ever confronted with violence. Look at the issues through a clear lens and let’s leave the vigilantes where they belong- in the Hollywood movies.

A police officer that had been directing traffic in Federal Way walked over and introduced himself to me last year while I was out campaigning.

The officer previously served duty as a sniper with an infantry unit in Iraq. I will not use his name because I have heard terrorists have been known to track certain personnel that served in the war on terror and anything an officer says publicly is scrutinized by the department.

I recently saw the officer in front of his house and asked him what kind of rifle he used for sniper duty. He used the M24 — a Remington 700 in .308.

The Remington 700s (and Winchester 70s) were popular hunting rifles in the early 1960s when Marine snipers like Carlos Hathcock started ordering them by mail right out of the catalogues to counter snipers killing U.S. troops in Vietnam. Prior to the Vietnam War, a war ended and the U.S. allowed its sniper programs to fall into disrepair.

After World War II, most army snipers used scoped regular-issue rifles with match-grade barrels. These were often M1 Garands in 30.06 and M14 rifles in .308. Even after the Korean War and Vietnam there was no real dedicated sniper platform.

Introduced in 1988 as the Army’s designated sniper weapon system, the M24 is a bolt-action rifle with a heavier barrel than standard deer rifles and a very expensive trigger system. But the bolt-action M24 is difficult to load quickly for close-quarter combat situations that can suddenly develop in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The M14 (aka M21) rifle is making a comeback; i.e., the semi-automatic .308 standard issue that soldiers used during the Vietnam War. I was surprised to learn that a variant of the M14 is deployed as a sniper rifle.

Sniper tactics for infantry troops conducting urban warfare are probably conducted quite a bit differently than the way Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock II operated.

Incidentally, there are probably 10 or 20 books at Borders Bookstore about snipers and they all tell Hathcock’s amazing story. Apparently there is a great deal of interest in the subject- books, movies and documentaries are continuing to appear and sniper stories involving Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots are just beginning to be told!

When participating in shooting activities like 600 yard CMP practice at the Paul Bunyan Club in Puyallup, I found that many of the riflemen (and women) shot the same weapons discussed above. I started out with an M1 Garand with a match barrel that the club lent to me and eventually started shooting a semi-automatic version of the smaller caliber M16 (sometimes referred to as an AR15). The M16 is the weapon that most U.S. soldiers carry today.

I have heard that many more officers across the country now carry pistols while off duty. Officers that used to only wear their weapons at work a few years ago are purchasing additional personal weapons. More officers are also encouraging their wives, husbands and children to learn gun-handling skills. But local officers don’t talk “on the record” about such matters — especially when they know that what they tell me can end up in The Mirror!

We are looking for verification as to whether officers keep AR15 rifles in their personal vehicles while off-duty. Many armed citizens report keeping a rifle with them. A word of caution: long rifles and shotguns need to be unloaded inside or on a vehicle but the beauty of many military rifles is that you can load 30 rounds (or more) as quickly as you can get to your weapon. Increasing threats to law enforcement officers, their families and the public make it feel like we are headed into rough waters.

Recently, Seattle and Federal Way have experienced officer-involved shootings. An assailant can run up and kill an officer with a knife or other deadly weapon from 21 feet before an officer can react. Trained officers make sure that assailants can’t close the gap.

I always take the opportunity to discuss various armed self-defense issues with police officers and the commanders and chiefs. The brass avoid saying anything that might impact public relations and officers have to be sensitive to their chain of command.

But most officers (and commanders) that I talk to appreciate trained citizens who take the trouble to wear a weapon responsibly. They can’t always tell us publicly what is on their minds. Nevertheless, all of us (whether we pack or don’t pack) should let our officers in Federal Way know that we appreciate the tough circumstances they confront every day. Some of them, like my neighbor, have come directly from the War on Terror to protect us right here at home.