Contributors

Friday, January 16, 2015

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Use

Politico has a piece up about the myth of defensive gun ownership that is certain to cause many mouths to foam and bowels to be blown. Here are a few choice pulls...

What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States. 

Check. My brother in law assures me that his children are much more safe in his house because there are many guns there. When I ask him who is more likely to have an accident with a gun, his kids or my kids (living in a house with zero guns), he says, with a straight face, my kids. You really have to love the Gun Cult:)

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

Did they, now? Now I understand why the Right is so paranoid about data. They are simply projecting the fact that they manipulate data on to the rest of us. What a complete load of bullshit. Not everyone in American owns a gun so to extrapolate to the entire population is terribly flawed. Worse, the fact that the NRA humps this "fact" all the time without mentioning the amount of accidents that occur with those same gun owners honestly creates a make believe land where guns are always good, forever and ever, amen.

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.

I've never heard of the Gun Violence Archive but I can bet that the words "non-partisan" are nearly certain to elicit shrieks of disapproval and chest thumping from the Gun Cult. This is especially true when you see something like this.

So, really, it's far less than 2 million defensive uses a year. The Politico piece also notes that Kleck himself admitted that "defensive gun use" is a relative term. 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun use was illegal? Wow. And when you compare it to the other statistics like accidental shootings, murders, and injuries, the necessity of defensive gun use is exposed to be one of the greatest lies ever believed by the American people. As the article concludes...

But the evidence clearly shows that our lax gun laws and increased gun ownership, spurred on by this myth, do not help “good guys with guns” defend themselves, their families or our society. Instead, they are aiding and abetting criminals by providing them with more guns, with 200,000 already stolen on an annual basis. And more guns means more homicides. More suicides. More dead men, women and children. Not fewer. 

Yep.


8 comments:

juris imprudent said...

Interesting that they don't discuss the defensive gun use estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey - which is universally acknowledged (amongst real academics) to underestimate such incidents.

Oh, did I just blow a bowel? Probably, since you think this is some deeply thought out refutation of something that has been researched by people actually in the field of criminal justice, not just a couple of proggie boys playing.

juris imprudent said...

Oh, and never mind that homicide and accident rates have been declining (even as there are more guns around). Not sure about suicide but I think the rate hasn't varied a great deal.

GuardDuck said...

Okay mark,

How do you define what a defensive use of a gun is?

Larry said...

Well, this site appears to define "defensive use" as "shots fired". I couldn't find where they said so explicitly, but of the 30-40 incidents I looked at, all involved shots fired. Which if that really is how they're counting them, is a really sneaky-shitty way (dare I say, a truly Markadelphian way of hugely under-counting defensive uses of firearms and producing misleading stats. Because by all accounts, the large majority of real-life incidents don't involve shots being fired because most muggers, burglars, rapists, etc., aren't too keen on getting perforated themselves. There's always a few retards or so wasted on drugs that they don't care, but that's a small minority.

GuardDuck said...

Exactly Larry, not only shots fired, but police report filed as well as 'verified' by the site itself - which probably leave a lot of latitude in the process of 'verifying'.

It sure seems as if the site's 'non partisan' status is belied by it's very partisan methodology.

juris imprudent said...

Well gents, with all of this bowel-blowing, I think it safe to say that M has no intention of actually discussing this.

As if he actually discusses anything... LOL. He is only interested in preaching and all he has is a choir full of sinners!

Anonymous said...

Another myth!

Just one of many

Larry said...

He is only interested in preaching and all he has is a choir full of sinners!

Yup.