COLUMN RIGHT/ J. NEIL SCHULMAN : Gunfight at the 4 ‘n 20 Pie Shop : The evidence against restricting handguns is statistical, not just anecdotal.

Here’s another story you didn’t see on the network news.

At midnight on Sept. 18, former top-ranked boxer Randy Shields was sitting at his usual table at the 4 ‘n 20 Pie Shop in Studio City, writing a screenplay. Suddenly, two masked robbers burst in with a shotgun blast and handgun fire. Shields dropped to the floor; the robbers immediately shot at him, winging his leg.

Dragging himself into the darkened back room, Shields watched as the robbers pistol-whipped a busboy to get him to open the cash register, then shot through his shoe when he couldn’t do it. “Somebody’s gonna die tonight!” one of the robbers yelled, then opened fire toward several customers and waitresses, ordering them to hand over their wallets.

Shields saw his opportunity to fire without endangering bystanders. He pulled out his concealed .380 Walther PPK/S pistol, which he carries licensed as a part-time private bodyguard, and opened fire on the robbers, wounding them. They ran out to the parking lot where their driver was waiting; Shields put a couple of bullets into the getaway car, then ran out of ammunition. The robbers opened fire on him again and he dived back into the restaurant. The robbers squealed out to Laurel Canyon, then pulled a U-turn so they could fire a few extra rounds into the restaurant.

Aside from Shields’ minor leg wound and the busboy’s bruises, no employees or customers were hurt. The robbers called an ambulance to treat their wounds, claiming to be victims of a drive-by shooting. But the bullets Shields put into their getaway car--and into a wad of money from two previous robberies--were enough for police to make an arrest.

Even an advocate of restricting handguns would find it hard to argue against the effects of Shields’ being armed that night.

But that advocate of handgun restriction might argue that this is mere anecdotal evidence, useless in deriving any public-policy conclusions. Surely, carrying a gun is no guarantee that others would be as brave and clear-headed as Shields when faced with armed criminals. Further, since no criminal justice agency compiles statistics on anti-crime gun use by civilians, that objection is difficult to answer.

Difficult but not impossible. Criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, has compiled data that show Americans use handguns for defense about 645,000 times each year, without wounding anyone 99% of the time. A 1986 National Institute of Justice survey of 2,000 felons in 10 state prisons found 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim” and 57% said they were “more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

Hans Toch of the State University of New York School of Criminology in Albany concluded, “High saturations of guns . . . inhibit illegal aggression.”

But even granting possible crime deterrence, doesn’t the danger of even licensed, concealed firearms in the hands of civilians outweigh the benefits?

No. Criminologist Don Kates of the Pacific Research Foundation said, “Instances of citizens using guns with excessive force or against innocent persons they have misidentified as criminals are negligible.”

And while California doesn’t compile records on firearms license revocations, a few states do. After rigorous checks, Florida reports that of 129,049 licenses issued since October, 1987, under that state’s mandatory license issuance to all qualified applicants, it has revoked 222 licenses (1 in 581) but only 115 for a crime (1 in 1,122). Only 17 licenses have had to be revoked for a crime using a firearm: 1 in 7,591. Meanwhile, according to FBI crime reports, the homicide rate in Florida dropped 20% between 1986 and 1991, while the U.S. homicide rate increased 14% during that same period.

Indiana, which has 220,623 licenses outstanding, doesn’t break down its reasons for revoking licenses, and reports 349 revoked between 1989 and 1991 (1 in 632), with most revocations being one year for unnecessarily brandishing a firearm.

Any sensible public policy demands that hysteria and demagoguery not bury the facts. Firearms carried by responsible, competent civilians present no danger to the public. Both survey data and dramatic examples such as Shields’ provide us good reason to believe that they save lives.

If anyone wants more proof than that, then they will have to demand that the criminal justice agencies that track the evil that people do with firearms track the good that they do as well.