By John Erickson

The three legs of the gun violence stool are a shooter with a gun, a victim and a criminal act. Remove any one of the three legs and the stool collapses — no gun violence.

I am impressed that almost all gun violence is an attack or execution (the shooter has a gun, the victim does not) rather than an actual gunfight.

Why aren't gun owners attacked as often as unarmed individuals?

Mountains of data and analysis exist on the effect of guns on crime. The same data are used by both gun owners and gun-grabbers to prove completely opposite views on the same issue!

Whenever the same data are used to prove both sides of an argument, you are probably asking the wrong question.

It seems that gun possession prevents the armed individual from becoming a victim. But how can this be? The data do not clearly show that guns prevent crime.

Consider the following: If guns prevent victims, the criminal/dangerous mentally ill (DMI) will seek out another victim who is unarmed. The overall statistics won't change but a gun prevented a crime against the armed individual.

If enough armed individuals are present in a given area, the criminals/DMIs will pick another area to attack. Note how flare-ups of gang violence are quelled by flooding the area with armed police! The criminals disappear like roaches when the lights go on — and reappear when the police presence decreases. Note how mass shootings are ended when police with guns appear (or occasionally civilians with legally-owned firearms).

Criminal activity ceases when the certainty of failure/getting caught and the severity of punishment makes crime not pay. Is it sheer coincidence that criminals/DMI attack undefended and well-advertised-as-such schools, malls, churches and citizens in certain cities? They never attack police stations, bars frequented by Navy SEALs, NASCAR races, rodeos, schools where concealed carry is permitted, movie theaters where concealed carry is permitted or summer camps on isolated Norwegian islands where marksmanship is taught on the camp firing range.

I speculate there is a gun-possession tipping point — a percentage of trained citizens possessing guns and ready to defend themselves until the police arrive — such that the criminals/DMI will attack elsewhere. I further speculate that fewer than 10% of the citizens having a gun and trained in its use will provide a deterrence effect that will benefit the rest of the population. This can and should be studied, possibly in Oak Park itself.

In 2013 Congress threw another $100,000,000 at ineffective mental health efforts to treat/control the DMI, and brawling over gun control continues. The gun violence stool still stands — guns remain in the hands of shooters, numerous victims abound and the uncertainty of getting caught/variable nature of the punishment make criminal activity a still viable option.

Decrease the number of potential victims, remove a leg from the gun violence stool and watch the gun violence decrease.

John Erickson, M.D., is an Oak Park resident and a member of the recently disbanded Gun Rights and Responsibilities Committee, an ad hoc citizens group studying the issue of gun violence in this country.