CNN
Reasons for owning a gun have changed.
A national survey published in March by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that nearly half (48%) of gun owners say the main reason they own a gun is for protection, up from 26% who gave that answer in 1999.
Less than a third (32%) cited hunting as the main reason, down from nearly half (49%) in 1999.
The findings make no sense, since violent crime in the country overall has dropped by 48% since 1993, according to Kellermann.
Perhaps even more
important -- and less understood -- is the evidence that the benefits of
keeping a gun for protection are far outweighed by the risks, he said.
But those studies are more than 17 years old and out of date, which is why, he said, new research is needed.
"Perhaps even more important -- and less understood -- is the evidence that the benefits of keeping a gun for protection are far outweighed by the risks, he said."
ReplyDeleteObviously this guy isn't keeping up with the news that the studies are starting to be released and they tend to contradict his assertion listed above.
But suppose just for a minute that these studies showed that in fact, the statistics showed that there are more criminal uses of guns than lawful defensive guns uses. Does this make it ok, to restrict the use of defensive use of firearms in some way? Just because there is less than 50% number of defensive gun uses, does that make the 49% or whatever uses not count?
Many of us here, and sometimes I tend to like to debate over who's statistics are correct. But it comes down to someone wanting to assert some sort of control over their own lives.
After bearing arms for the government for somewhere over thirty years, it seems logical to me that if I'm competent enough to be trusted with that, I should be competent enough to protect my family. Doesn't matter if I've ever had to fire a shot in either venue, the responsibility remains the same.
As I said here many time, this notion of comparing DGUs to gun crimes as a reason for more gun control is a patently false measure. The main reason is that places with strict laws will have a far worse ratio than places which allow and promote gun ownership for self-defense. How many DGUs do you think England has? Or DC?
DeleteLess than a third (32%) cited hunting as the main reason, down from nearly half (49%) in 1999.
DeleteThe findings make no sense, since violent crime in the country overall has dropped by 48% since 1993, according to Kellermann.
Proof that Kellermann as a “researcher” will not properly examine the positive benefit of guns. More people buy and use guns for self-defense, crime drops, and this “makes no sense” to him. It is a valid hypothesis to base a study to see if there is a causational relationship. That is what he is supposed to do with that grant money.
It probably makes perfect sense to him just like it does to me. It's just that guns do so much more harm than good, the option of gun control is the right one.
DeleteBut he is being paid as a professional to research the affect of guns- not make assumptions that "make sense" to people like you and him who are starting from an anti-gun position.
DeleteSince you've yet to post my comment about the Slate article, I'll have to repeat parts here. The assessment done by the National Academy of Sciences is that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal acts with a firearm. Now haven't people on your side accused us of rejecting good science when it comes to guns? Here you are repeating your assertion that guns cause far more harm than good, even though the science is showing otherwise.
DeleteI must have missed the part where the article said that gun buying is driven by fear. Owning a gun for self-protection is a rational response to potential threats, not fear. And that study cited has been discredited for a long time.
ReplyDeleteThe findings make no sense, since violent crime in the country overall has dropped by 48% since 1993, according to Kellermann.
ReplyDeleteHey, Mikeb! Remember to yell at Dr. Kellerman for using 1993 as the starting point. I believe you refer to doing that as "what [his] entire false argument depends upon."
;-)
When a gun control person uses '93 as the starting point, it's a concession to your side's spin. Any subsequent year would work even better for our side.
DeleteWhen a gun control person uses '93 as the starting point, it's a concession to your side's spin. Any subsequent year would work even better for our side.
DeleteNot even close, Mikeb.
The findings [that gun ownership is now strongly driven by self-defense concerns] make no sense, since violent crime in the country overall has dropped by 48% since 1993, according to Kellermann.
He's saying that people arming themselves for self-defense are doing so unnecessarily, since violent crime has been plummeting for twenty years. It's a silly argument, but it's bolstered by using 1993 as the starting point. It is in no way "a concession to [my] side's 'spin.'"
I've gotten accustomed to you linking to, citing, and quoting articles that you apparently have only read very incompletely, but this was in the part you quoted.