The gun control vs. gun rights debate often seems to boil down to a simple question, "do guns do more harm than good?" The pro-gun crowd never tires of claiming that the frequent incidents of defensive gun use (DGU) more than make up for the gun violence, and further, they say if not for the many guns in the hands of good guys, there'd be far more gun violence.
I've never been convinced. In spite of all the so-called statistical proof, the research by Professors Lott and Kleck, the untiring repetition of gun rights apologists, I find their claims unconvincing. Here's why.
I read dozens of pro-gun blogs daily. The comments, predominately from like-minded writers, number in the hundreds, not on every post of course, but as a cumulative figure, hundreds. Over the last year that adds up to 70,000 or 100,000 communications from the pro-gun world. I can recall only one report of a DGU, which was the story Caleb shared about throwing his coffee at the mugger and drawing his gun.
Often the argument is that the typical DGU results in only the brandishing of the weapon, like in Caleb's story, and as a result it's difficult to gather accurate statistics. My question is why don't we read about them regularly on the blogs. The anonymity of the internet would allow any proud gun owner who's had the good fortune to fend off an assailant to tell his story. Yet, there's nothing or next to nothing.
The other argument is that Clayton Cramer runs a wonderful site dedicated to this very thing. Well, as I've pointed out before, he accounts for about a thousand a year, hardly the numbers required to justify private ownership of guns in America.
My conclusion is that true incidents of defensive gun use are quite rare. They're much rarer than the incidents of guns being stolen, sold to the wrong people privately or misused by the legal owner. In other words, guns do more harm than good, much more. I admit they're not quite as rare as meteorite strikes, but they're certainly not what the pro-gun crowd says.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
You've engaged in the greatest fallacy of the internet: You read it on the internet, so it must be true.
ReplyDeleteOr specifically, in your case: You didn't read it on the internet, so it must not be true.
You've got to do better than that.
In the meantime, here is a DGU for you:
http://barackslies.blogspot.com/2009/12/if-she-lived-in-england.html
I guess you forgot about the black bear incident.
ReplyDeleteAztecRed, you really like simplifying the issue.
ReplyDeleteThere is more proof that DGU is a fallacy in comparison to the total cost of "gun violence".
Let's make it a little more complex and hope you can comprehend how much it costs in medical costs, police time, and then the cost of the criminal justice system for even a criminal case.
We can lock these people up, but are you willing to pay for housing people in prison.
Or would you prefer to pay for prevention and have these people be productive, or in the case of the mentally ill, at least under care?
Mike, you are wrong on DGU but for the sake of argument, let's forget it for a moment and just look at non-criminal use of firearms instead.
ReplyDeleteThe sporting use of firearms greatly outweighs the criminal use of firearms in the United States. More people engage in the shooting sports every year than play golf, tennis or any other personal and team sports. Several million rounds of ammunition are consumed in every facet of the shooting sports compared to a few thousand rounds used criminally.
While I would never claim that the right to bear arms in this great nation is dependent upon any shooting sports use, I would say that the rather minuscule number of criminal uses of a gun in comparison to the non-criminal provides "the numbers required to justify private ownership of guns in America" as you put it.
Next, wanna talk about safety? With millions of people participating in the shooting sports, there are really very few accidental gun deaths in comparison. In fact, every year more people die playing golf than while participating in the shooting sports.
Just because you are ignoring the reports of DGUs, doesn't mean they are not happening. Take this one for instance:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/donna-jackson-kills-intru_n_383871.html
Obviously, guns are bad news for women. She should have just called the cops and waited instead.
"hardly the numbers required to justify private ownership of guns in America."
ReplyDeleteNow we need to justify it?
Sorry, the SCOTUS says otherwise.
You are certainly free to cross the pond and try to confiscate them.
Good luck.
"There is more proof that DGU is a fallacy in comparison to the total cost of "gun violence"."
ReplyDeleteI dare you to show me this proof. I know for a fact that it doesn't exist, but i'm interested in seeing what you can contrive.
"We can lock these people up, but are you willing to pay for housing people in prison."
Sure I am. According to you, the money is already being spent. We might as well spend it on something productive: bigger prisons.
You lock more criminals up for longer amounts of time and that's less money you have to spend patching up their victims in the hospital and paying police to re-arrest them every 6 months.
and then the cost of the criminal justice system for even a criminal case.
ReplyDeleteThat's not due to guns, that's due to CRIMINALS.
Unless of course you're dumb enough to believe that gun control would lead to fewer people committing crimes.
How would the medical costs, police costs, or judicial costs be any different if the violent folks among us replaced 50% of their "gun violence" with knife violence or blunt trauma violence?
Penn Jillette:
ReplyDelete"If everyone having guns in their homes means more people die, than OK--there is a right and a wrong beyond just safety. Live free or di, give me liberty or give me death... ...freedom is more important than our life"
DGU vs. crime and accidents are only one argument for gun policy. Protection from tyranny, respect for the bill of rights, and freedom are others. Each of these alone is sufficient to justify gun rights.
If you are going to bring up participation in shooting sports, why would you have an aversion to registration of a sporting firearm?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, you have a legal purpose to own it.
FWM, Is this true? I find it unbelievable.
ReplyDelete"More people engage in the shooting sports every year than play golf, tennis or any other personal and team sports.".
Sevesteen, Thanks for mentioning there's more to it than the comparison of DGUs with gun violence. I agree, but as you know, I don't think those other things are worth much either.
kaveman, I could never forget about "the black bear incident," it's one of my favorite stories. But how many times do you want to count it? When we speak of DGUs, we're talking PER YEAR. Your defending yourself against the bear counted in the year it happened. Do you want to count it again in the year you told me about it?
ReplyDelete"If you are going to bring up participation in shooting sports, why would you have an aversion to registration of a sporting firearm?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, you have a legal purpose to own it."
Because registration only has two purposes: taxation and confiscation. Guns are already taxed at the time of sale and confiscation is non-negotiable. Thus registration is pointless.
AztecRed, No offense, but it sounds like you're repeating what the puppet masters at the NRA have said, that registration has only two purposes.
ReplyDeleteWho says it has only two purposes? You? Are you the judge of that? Is the NRA?
I'd say there's another purpose, to encourage you legitimate gun owners to hold on to your property. If your guns were registered to you like your cars are, you'd be more careful not to let them get stolen and not to let them "flow" into the wrong hands with no record of the flow.
It's about accountability. You guys are supposed to be big on accountability. How about being accountable for what's yours and being willing to be held responsible if something goes wrong.
Laci: "If you are going to bring up participation in shooting sports, why would you have an aversion to registration of a sporting firearm? After all, you have a legal purpose to own it."
ReplyDeleteBritain had registration of sporting firearms, but then banned and confiscated all registered handguns and all registered semiauto and pump action rifles and shotguns.
Australia and Germany have done similar things and US gun control advocates often hold up these countries as good examples.
But gosh, why would US gunowners be concerned about gun registration?
I'd say there's another purpose, to encourage you legitimate gun owners to hold on to your property. If your guns were registered to you like your cars are, you'd be more careful not to let them get stolen and not to let them "flow" into the wrong hands with no record of the flow.
ReplyDeleteThank you MikeB, for illustrating yet again how completely out of touch with reality you are!
Please, explain to me how registering your car, gun or other object prevents it from being stolen and used in a crime.
You'll also note that we do not register cars. It's perfectly legal for you or I to own a car and not register it with any governmental agency.
Does it ever get old being wrong MikeB?
"Who says it has only two purposes? You? Are you the judge of that? Is the NRA?"
ReplyDeleteCan you name something the government registers for some purpose other than taxation and confiscation?
"I'd say there's another purpose, to encourage you legitimate gun owners to hold on to your property."
And how will registration do that? As Mike W. alluded, registered cars get stolen every day. That's because car registration is for taxation purposes. And when you don't pay the tax, the car is confiscated.
And how will you guarantee that registration won't be used to further tax firearms or confiscate them?
FishyJay brought up a legitimate concern. When governments ban certain types of firearms, registration just made confiscation that much easier.
It goes right back to what I said. Registration only serves two purposes: Taxation and confiscation.
I notice that MikeB offers no actual refutation of DGU numbers (despite referring to them as "myths."
ReplyDeleteAll he does is go "Nuh Uh, you're wrong!"
No evidence, no facts, nothing substantive on which to base his conclusion as to the rarity of DGU's.
As usual MikeB, in typical anti-gun fashion is simply making crap up.
Mike W. said, "I notice that MikeB offers no actual refutation of DGU numbers."
ReplyDeleteActually I do have evidence. It's the near total lack of such reports by you guys who write and comment on the pro-gun blogs. The evidence is called "common sense.""common sense."
Mike, my blog devoted to civilian defensive uses is based on news reports. (Very, very rarely, these are based on police press releases or a personal experience. My next-door neighbor used a rifle to chase someone out of his house who had broken in, and was in his daughter's bedroom.) Not every news report gets caught by me and my associates. And not every incident that happens gets reported--especially if those incidents don't end up with a police report.
ReplyDeleteEven the LOWEST estimates of the number of defensive uses are typically in the 80,000-90,000 defensive gun uses a year--with the average of the dozens of surveys completed over the last 25 years usually ending up in the low six figures per year.
Dear Clayton, I'm honored to have received a comment from you. You're a legend in the business, and as such, I'm reluctant to disagree with you - but I'll try.
ReplyDeleteThe LOW figures you mentioned may be more like it. That level of frequency might explain the absence of personal reports by the gun bloggers. But my suspicions go deeper. Many of those 100,000 or so are not DGUs at all. You've got all kinds of stuff in there that shouldn't be counted. These range all the way from murder which is covered up to the proverbial shooting at a snake in the back yard. You've got many incidents of unnecessary aggression with the gun in a supposed defensive situation about which we'll never know if it was really necessary or not.
So, for me the true DGUs are much less that any of the accountings we see.