Hemenway’s new book, Private Guns, Public Health (University of Michigan Press), which takes an original approach to an old problem by applying a scientific perspective to firearms. Hemenway, who directs the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the School of Public Health (www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc), summarizes and interprets findings from hundreds of surveys and from epidemiological and field studies to deliver on the book’s subtitle: A Dramatic New Plan for Ending America’s Epidemic of Gun Violence.
"The gun-control debate often makes it look like there are only two options: either take away people’s guns, or not," he says. "That’s not it at all. This is more like a harm-reduction strategy. Recognize that there are a lot of guns out there, and that reasonable gun policies can minimize the harm that comes from them."
In his book, he points out the fascinating idea that the United States is not a particularly violent society. Often comparisons are misleading, for example, comparing America to Colombia, Mexico, and Estonia makes America appear a truly peaceable kingdom. A more relevant comparison is against other high-income, industrialized nations. The percentage of the U.S. population victimized in 2000 by crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents is about average for 17 industrialized countries, and lower on many indices than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.
"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns.
He agrees with the pro-gun community in saying that guns don’t induce people to commit crimes. "What guns do is make crimes lethal," says Hemenway. They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. "If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there’s a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying," he explains. "With guns, the chance is 90 percent."
To me that's an impressive comparison, successful suicides are 3% with drugs, 90% with a gun. Hemenway goes on to shed some light on the fallacy of comparing guns with cars, something I've attempted myself. Naturally, the PhD from Harvard does a better job of it.
Gun deaths fall into three categories: homicides, suicides, and accidental killings. In 2001, about 30,000 people died from gunfire in the United States. Set this against the 43,000 annual deaths from motor-vehicle accidents to recognize what startling carnage comes out of a barrel. The comparison is especially telling because cars "are a way of life," as Hemenway explains. "People use cars all day, every day—and ‘motor vehicles’ include trucks. How many of us use guns?"
Another very fascinating angle Hemenway comes up with is that all the attention on so-called assault weapons may very well serve the purposes of the pro-gun folks.
Though assault weapons have attracted lots of publicity from Hollywood and Washington, and NRA stands for National Rifle Association, these facts mask the reality of the gun problem, which centers on pistols. "Handguns are the crime guns," Hemenway says. "They are the ones you can conceal, the guns you take to go rob somebody. You don’t mug people at rifle-point."And America is awash in handguns. Canada, for example, has almost as many guns per capita as the United States, but Americans own far more pistols. "Where do Canadian criminals, and Mexican criminals, get their handguns?" asks Hemenway. "From the United States." Gang members in Boston and New York get their handguns from other states with permissive gun laws; the firearms flow freely across state borders. Interstate 95, which runs from Florida to New England, even has a nickname among gun-runners: "the Iron Pipeline."
What's your opinion? Do you think the excessive attention paid to military style assault rifles has distracted us from the real problem? Does that make sense? What do you think Prof. Hemenway would suggest as a solution? Do you believe him when he says he's interested in reasonable gun policies which will minimize the harm that comes from guns? Or do you think all anti-gun talk leads to banning?
Please leave a comment.
I found it interesting that one of the headlines I read on the church shooting discussed security at church's and not the issue of how easy it is to get a gun in America. Like nuclear weapons, the genie is out of the bag. Only way to solve the problem of guns in america is to provide more social services like mental health care for the people who may need it like the Alabama man, and to redistribute the wealth in America so more people don't have to resort to guns and crime. The grand prince has spoken..........
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
ReplyDeleteIt’s very easy to make childproof guns."
Okay, any of you anti-gun folks want to take a crack at designing a "childproof gun"?
How about defining "child"? The Brady Campaign has included people up to the age of 24 in their statistics about "children". What should the age be?
How about physical differences due to age?
How about physical infirmities? If a firearm can't be operated by a child, how many people who due to age or physical disabilities won't be able to operate the firearm?
Should we just tell those people "Too bad, in order to save the lives of children, you don't get to defend yourself?"
It’s very easy to make childproof guns." Logic like this pervades Hemenway’s new book
What logic? Someone says, with no citation, no experience, no engineering skills that it is easy to do something and that is LOGIC?
Gee this sounds familiar
Statistically, the United States is not a particularly violent society
But Mike, I thought that gun availability was what made America violent....ready to give up that particular canard now?
"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country.
So, all our violence is more lethal then other countries,right? Nope, but he tries to cover that and limit it to "high-income, industrialized nations." Guess Mexico would be surprised to know they aren't a high income, industrialized nation.
Maybe he is cherry picking his statistics a little?
"But a 19-year-old in America can very easily get a pistol.
But not legally, 21 is the federal age to purchase firearms legally.
So, since 19 year olds can illegally get a firearm, let's make a law making it more illegaller for them to get a firearm. ERRR, how does that help?
"The gun-control debate often makes it look like there are only two options: either take away people’s guns, or not," he says. "That’s not it at all. This is more like a harm-reduction strategy.
Since we already have multiple laws that control who can purchase firearms, who can carry firearms, etc....isn't Hemenway being a little dishonest by talking about "harm reduction strategy"?
Every "harm reduction strategy" I've seen proposed by the anti-freedom crowd has involved making it harder for people to purchase firearms. That is the same as "taking away" people's guns.
They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. "If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there’s a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying," he explains. "With guns, the chance is 90 percent."
Gee talk about misleading. No discussion about how many "suicide attempts" with pills are just cries for help, attempts to get attention. No talk about how intention and seriousness about suicide influences choice of method.
Nothing but an attempt to show that guns "make suicide attempts lethal".
Gee then you wonder why we object to the distortions, the deliberate attempts to mislead. You can recognize that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead, right Mike?
Wow, I didn't realize that the thugs robbing people, taking their livelihood were so concerned about our health.
Ask criminals why they carried a gun while robbing the convenience store and frequently the answer is, "So I could get the money and not have to hurt anyone."
So we shouldn't carry guns because some one might get hurt, but criminals carry guns so they don't have to hurt anyone?
Why doesn't the opposite argument also apply? We don't we get credit for carrying firearm so we don't have to hurt the thugs?
I'll skip over all the bushwa about the self defense stories that Hemenway "studied" for a simple reason. You don't buy them and obviously the incidents included in the article were cherry picked to show the worst.
Read Clayton Cramer's Civilian Self Defense Blog instead.
Hemenway scoffs at the rote objection, "A determined criminal will always get a gun," responding, "Yes, but a lot of people aren’t that determined. I’m sure there are some determined yacht buyers out there, but when you raise the price high enough, a lot of them stop buying yachts."
Guess the truth is out, if you are poor you shouldn't be able to defend yourself or enjoy a shooting sport. Let's save those for the people who can do them right....the people who can afford yachts. Middle Class, poor people need not apply.
The comparison is especially telling because cars "are a way of life," as Hemenway explains. "People use cars all day, every day—and ‘motor vehicles’ include trucks. How many of us use guns?"
Yep, people in New York City use cars every day, every person in America drives a car every day....so comparison to firearms are invalid. Wrong, Wrong Wrong.
An attempt to deny the obvious that the comparison is valid.
"Handguns are the crime guns,"
So, my handguns are crime guns? So the handguns that have done nothing but punch holes in paper are crime guns?
Isn't that a load of BS! Imagine all those cops unknowingly carrying crime guns. Why we can reduce crime in a matter of minutes. Just have all the cops, the FBI, BATFE, security guards all turn in their crime guns. Amazing
Il Principe,
ReplyDeleteSorry but even if you made it possible for every person to have as much money as everyone else in America there will still be crime.
People will spend their money faster then others, buy stuff that doesn't last, use it for drugs, etc; then they will need more money and will do what it takes to get it.
Making America into a socialist paradise is a pipedream (just what are you smoking in it?),impossible and it wouldn't fix the problem.
The issue is the people, not the money.
Just hear another nut with a gun had to be taken down in a hospital this morning! This just after the 10 people shot by that other gun-toting nut last night.
ReplyDeleteLet's keep the 'gun laws' so that our militias can protect us from the English troops.
"They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. "If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there’s a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying," he explains. "With guns, the chance is 90 percent."
ReplyDeleteAnd? C'mon Mike, you're smarter than this. I can think of several ways you could kill yourself WITHOUT a gun that would have nearly (if not 100%) fatality rates.
Yes Mike, I do think "reasonable gun laws" is essentially the same as banning guns. The gun laws we already have are already far past what is "reasonable, yet you and Lambert believe just a few more "reasonable" laws will solve the problem.
The problem isn't guns Mike, it's inner city crime, committed predominantly by 18-25 year old black males.
Ah yes, the typical ploy, conflating the actions of a criminal who goes on a shooting spree with the actions of tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners who carry on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteHow many laws did the Alabama shooter break? Let me guess, if it weren't for us "gun nuts" you could pass just one more law and incidences like this would never happen again?
Come back to reality Mud_Rake.
I find it strange that some people can even dare supporting the idea of guns being easily available, and hide behind the pretence that guns don't kill.
ReplyDeleteMikeb30200,
You have a strange nickname, LOL. I see in your profile you are American living in Italy, if I am not made a mistake?
On the blog I visit regularly, there is another American living in France, Microdot. He's very smart and educated.
Greetings from Paris.
Bob S, I know that making America into a socialist paradise will not solve the problem of guns in America. Like everything, it is the people in a society that a community, a city, and a country. Parents passing down information as what is ethical and what is not. I always enjoy reading comments from people who bash socialism and have no idea of what is is. republicans in america are more socialist than they want you to believe. With recent state interventions in the banking and auto industries, and nationalization of those industries, I would like to know where the free market republicans and democrats are in America? those republicans and democrats are embracing social market economic practices to protect AIG, Citi Corp, GM, and Chrysler from foriegn ownership. If they were capitalists, they would let the market decide the true value of AIG and if it was valuable. The gun problem is not limited to America as we see in FRANKFURT, Germany where an attacker clad all in black stormed into a high school in southwestern Germany on Wednesday morning and shot and killed at least 15 people.
ReplyDelete"I find it strange that some people can even dare supporting the idea of guns being easily available, and hide behind the pretence that guns don't kill."
ReplyDeleteValerie - Put a loaded gun on your nightstand and let me know when it jumps up and kills someone.
When that happens I'll agree that guns kill. Until then I'll continue to live in reality where a gun is an inanimate object, incapable of anything without intent and conscious manipulation by a human being.
Do you believe him when he says he's interested in reasonable gun policies which will minimize the harm that comes from guns? Or do you think all anti-gun talk leads to banning?
ReplyDeleteHmm, let's see from MikeB all we've gotten basically is we need to reduce the number of guns available.
No mention how we are going to do that. No mention how we are going to keep criminals from getting firearms but allow the responsible to get firearms.
Heck, I don't even see in the constitution where rights are limited to the responsible.
I mean we allow irresponsible people to have the freedom of speech.....many irresponsible people use to call for the restriction of other rights.
We have pro-ignorance, anti-freedom groups praising states like California, Illinois, cities like D.C. and Chicago. Places where firearms are practically banned.....and MikeB wonders if all the talk leads to banning.
What "reasonable laws" MikeB don't lead to restricting access to firearms?
Here's another statement from Hemenway:
ReplyDelete"The majority of Americans who die unintentionally from firearms are under twentyfive
years of age." No date is given for this claim but one can assume it's for 2003 or 2000, depending on the cited paper.
According to Wisqars, in 2004, there were 649 unintentional deaths by firearm for all age groups. For the ages of 1-25, there were 247. 38%.
Assuming he stayed w/ the "early nineties" wording before switching over to 1996-2001 (as looking at each individual year shows he did), the numbers for 1990-1994 for under 25 were 3926/7143. 55%
For 1990 alone it was 772/1416. Still 55%.
True, that's a "majority".
By 2000, however,(three years before he finished this report) it was 306/776. 39%. Not a majority. The same holds true since at least as early as '96. Over three years before his self cited other paper.
So even assuming he used the same wording from his 2000 paper, it would seem he would have to added over a decade of pre-'96 data to more current to come out w/ a "majority" or he intentionally used old data to make a current claim. Since he cites having accessed WISQARS for numbers in 2004, either way it shows nothing but a case of blatant intellectual dishonesty.
Bob said, "So, my handguns are crime guns? So the handguns that have done nothing but punch holes in paper are crime guns?"
ReplyDeleteDo you think that's what Hemenway said? Or are you doing what you usually do which is to pick on some point of the argument and go to great lengths to prove it wrong?
Obviously he didn't say ALL handguns are "crime guns." No one thought that, not even you, Bob. But lately that's the way you like to debate. I'm using this as one example so don't bother faulting me for not responding to all the others.
Valérie, Thanks so much for your comment. I feel very fortunate to have so many different types of commenters on my blog; I hope the ones I keep disagreeing with realize I feel that way.
ReplyDeleteAbout Microdot, he is indeed "very smart and educated."
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou pick out one small point out of a very long reply and focus on it. Shame on you.
Yes, Hemenmay is implying that all handguns are crime guns. Just like you have repeatedly said that all gun owners are responsible for crime because we own guns.
See how it works, you do it Mike all the time. You've repeatedly have said that gun owners bear responsibility, then back track to say "of course I didn't mean you responsible gun owners....but still you gun owners bear responsibility."
Hemenmway could have stated it in a different manner, he CHOSE
to say that HANDGUNS ARE CRIME GUNS. He didn't say that handguns are used often in crimes and also in self defense. He wants to put the image in people's minds that a handgun is only used for crime.
It is a propaganda war Mike and you are falling for it.
How about addressing some of the other points/questions from my comment?
Okay, any of you anti-gun folks want to take a crack at designing a "childproof gun"?
How about defining "child"? The Brady Campaign has included people up to the age of 24 in their statistics about "children". What should the age be?
How about physical differences due to age?
How about physical infirmities? If a firearm can't be operated by a child, how many people who due to age or physical disabilities won't be able to operate the firearm?
Since we already have multiple laws that control who can purchase firearms, who can carry firearms, etc....isn't Hemenway being a little dishonest by talking about "harm reduction strategy"?
How about addressing those questions Mike?
Bob, Why do you keep calling people "dishonest" and "liars?" This man is an academic who has an opinion that differs from yours.
ReplyDeleteI happen to agree with you that the child-proofing would probably be impractical. But maybe the Harvard Prof. has some ideas about that. I've ordered his book; I'll let you know.
No Mike, Hemenway is a paid shill for the Joyce Foundation who selectively cites data to pursue an agenda. I've already shown his intellectual dishonesty on one point, would you like more? His book is rife w/ it.
ReplyDelete"The sentence in the book was correct when I originally wrote it (probably in 2000 or 2001 when data were available for the 1990s up to 1998) but the sentence should have the dates specified, or a citation.
Cheers,
David"
At least he admits to not being current. Too bad it wasn't true in '98 either and hadn't been for at least three years.
Here's an interesting bit from their response to an NRA critique of their book:
(2) The editorial staff writes: “Hemenway, Miller and Azrael (sic) believed that their study proved that Right-to-Carry laws caused people to behave dangerously and thus directly led to people shooting or threatening others with a gun.”
Response: We say nothing along those lines. No variable in our analysis has anything to do with Right-to-Carry Laws, or shooting people or threatening anyone with a gun.
Really?
"Nonetheless, in the past decade, many states
have required police to issue gun-carrying permits to anyone who is not expressly
prohibited by statute, even if police have reason to believe that individual may misuse
the firearm.
"While evidence regarding the effects of these more permissive gun-carrying policies is
not conclusive, the best scientific studies suggest that they may increase rather
than reduce crime overall"
So they call studies that support that hypothesis the "best" and cite them, but they're not really saying it. Sure. OK.
He did get one thing right in the book though:
"By contrast, gun-control groups have smaller memberships, and many members have little knowledge of firearms;"
Ignorance is bliss.
Hemenway is dishonest Mike. That said, when you're a paid shill for an anti-gun group it's no surprise that your academic "research" is going to conclude that guns are bad.
ReplyDeleteHell, the Joyce Foundation doesn't pay him to come to the conclusion that guns save lives.
As with any study, you look at the funding for signs of obvious bias (as we have here) then you look at any data they cite. It usually doesn't take much digging to find out they're being deliberately dishonest.
I've yet to find one instance of the NRA paying academics for pro-gun studies.
The anti's have to lie and obfuscate to win. That makes them despicable.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteHow do you feel to be in the company of such liars and dishonest folks?
This is not my bias against theirs, this is proven, repeated, consistent lies and statements.
When you support their positions, cite their studies, agree with their conclusions, parrot their talking points, you are aligning yourself with liars.
Is that the company that you want to be in?
Is that the company you want to tell your kids you support?
Where does the idea that he's a shill for the Joyce Foundation come from?
ReplyDeleteAfter breaking my balls so much about not providing proof, I know none of you guys would state something you couldn't prove.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteA quick and simple search of the Joyce Foundation site found this information:
Grant List Section
Joyce Foundation Home Page
Thursday, July 21, 2005 Printable version
Harvard University School of Public Health
Boston, MA
Amount: $700,000
Length: 2 years
Web URL: www.hsph.harvard.edu/
"To support the Harvard Injury Control Research Center¦s technical assistance to the National Violent Death Reporting System, to conduct policy-relevant firearm research, and to increase its communications capacity."
http://www.joycefdn.org/GrantList/GrantDetails.aspx?grantId=28650
Do your research Mike, don't trust us. Ultimately, you will find out that the facts we cite are true.
But do you think that the Joyce Foundation would give him 700K if they expected him to back the pro-rights side?
"Where does the idea that he's a shill for the Joyce Foundation come from?"
ReplyDeleteRead bob's comment Mike. Also, Hemenway's grant from Joyce ran from 05-07 and he wrote his book/study in 2006.
How about this
ReplyDeleteA Public Health Approach
to Firearms Policy
DAVID HEMENWAY
Acknowledgments
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Packard Foundation, and the Open Society Institute helped fund this research.
Or this....remember some of the names you've used before? Kellermann? Wintermute,
Joyce Funds Artificial Public Groups, which Participate in the Supreme Court Briefings.
Most of the data we relate here comes directly from the Joyce Foundation’s website,12 or from its 2007 Report.13 By way of preface, Joyce also sent millions
to Harvard University School of Public Health, which funded research by David Hemenway of Harvard University School of Public Health,14 and Joyce also made grants to Arthur Kellerman15 and Garen Wintemute.16 This research would supply arguments for the “guns are dangerous” amici in the Supreme Court.
confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/JoyceCornellHeller.pdf
Read the whole PDF file, it really shows the efforts people like you are going to shape perception against firearms...and how dastardly they are going about doing it.
Bob - A perfect example of the primary tactic of the anti-gunner.
ReplyDeleteLying to win.
My Money says he ignores all information given....or maybe stalls a little longer asking for proof that Joyce is anti-gun (Easily done, but when Mike only comments once every 24 hours it does delay things quite a bit)
ReplyDeleteThen the next post will be another post from an anti-gun shill....as if none of this every happened.
Rinse, Repeat.
Not like he hasn't totally lost all arguments, and abandoned all of his principals (if only momentarily)
I knew you guys wouldn't disappoint to backup the Joyce Foundation funding comments. But what does it mean? Isn't it too convenient to write off the entire group, whether it be the Joyce Foundation or the Brady Campaign? How can you say this is different from what the NRA does? Doesn't every group do this? That doesn't make their experts "shills" or "liars." Doesn't it make more sense that the Hemenways and helmkes of the world believe what they say and then earn the support of their like-thinking organizations? Why is it necessary to paint them in a worse light than that they disagree with you? Isn't that bad enough?
ReplyDeleteThe Joyce foundation IS the Brady Campaign you fucking moron!
ReplyDeleteIt's necessary to point them out as liars because they LIE. So do you.
Why do you feel the need to lie to push your wrong agenda?
Fine Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteShow professionally published papers that have been funded by the NRA.
Show a single firearm related grant by the Joyce Foundation that represents the other side of the debate.
I've shown documented evidence of Hemenway using fudged numbers and then lying about it.
You seem to have no problem with that.