To: ________________________ From: Edward Crowell, PO Box 216, Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Re: Gun Control The attached

report is my own, individual work. I am not affiliated with, a member, or employee of any political or advocacy organization about gun control (for or against), nor has it be prepared at any person or groups request. I did the work myself and paid for the printing myself. Because it is important. My own background includes a Master of Science degree in Analytical Chemistry. My graduate research involved statistical analysis of data collected from human cancerous tissue samples. The method used was more complex than used here, but similar in principle, using correlation analysis to determine if a sample was normal or cancerous based on correlation calculations related to known tissue samples. I also have a law degree and have been a practicing attorney in Iowa for six years. The ongoing gun control debate means that the information and arguments I have developed are constantly evolving. Recently I replied to the issue of training requirements. Since I had already prepared the attached report, I will summarize those results here. I have heard many calls that gun owners should be trained to make sure they are properly trained, responsible, and safe. This is nonsense. Using CDC fatal and non-fatal injury data for firearms (available at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/) we can get numbers for fatal and non-fatal, unintentional, firearm injuries. We want fatal and nonfatal so we cover everyone who got shot. Firearms specifically because thats what gun control is concerned with. Unintentional because, nominally, that is what training will address. I say this because training will not stop someone who knows what they are doing wrong and intend to do it. They already know they shouldnt and do it anyway. So training must be aimed at unintentional injuries. Accidents would be a common word for it, but unintentional is more accurate. Averaged across the available years, there are 694.9 unintentional firearm deaths per year. Averaged across the available years, there are

309.8 unintentional non-fatal firearm injuries per year. Added together, that makes 1004.72, on average, unintentional shootings per year. There are an estimated 270,000,000 guns in the US. Lets assume each of those unintentional shootings was caused by a different gun. And that each of those guns was owned by a different person. No multiple injuries, no repeat offenders (which is provably false, but these assumptions maximize the number of negligent guns and gun owners). So, 1004.72 unintentional shootings a year. For easy math, call it 1000. 270,000,000 guns, well also round that down to 250,000,000. To get the rate of negligent gun owners we divide: 1000/250,000,000 = 1/250,000. Thats right. One in two hundred fifty thousand gun owners. The other 249,999 gun owners didnt cause unintentional injuries. However, the proposed laws affect them too. Restricting 249,999 people because of the unintentional acts of 1 is ludicrous. Further, training cannot guarantee reduction, so maybe you reduce the unintentional injuries. The problem is, its unintentional. They didnt mean to do anything wrong and didnt realize they were. Training wont fix it and even if it did, requiring everyone to get to that one person is not reasonable. That is over inclusive, a blanket restriction to address a tiny population. And a bad idea. I am not a paid advocate. I do have the relevant experience to support what I say. I provide my data sources and my methods. I have used a method verifiable by nearly everyone. I provide my contact information and will answer questions and provide the exact data and spreadsheets I used if asked. No tricks. No misdirection. No hand waving and no hiding behind complexity. Gun control does not work even based on its own claims. Sincerely __________________ Edward Crowell