Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/albund
In previous installments, we looked at the dangerous beliefs that (a) the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that citizens can fight against their own government; (b) gun regulation is a hallmark of tyranny, and (c) armed citizens can defend themselves against oppressive governments. Now we’re going to examine the Big Enchilada, the biggest, most popular, most dangerous belief of them all, the one that feeds all the others.
Dangerous Belief # 4 : Guns Make Us Safer
As mentioned last time, gun culture beliefs (like the beliefs of just about any fanatical ideological faction) are based on presumption rather than fact. That’s true of the beliefs listed above, and it’s most emphatically true of this, the cornerstone belief, which gunsters take for such a self-evident and unquestionable maxim that it has been elevated to the status of sacred cow. I’ve actually heard some of them proclaim that if you doubt this Golden Truth, then the burden of proof is on you.
You’ve no doubt seen plenty of anecdotal evidence: stories about how a little old granny with a shotgun fends off a burglar/ rapist/ terrorist and sends him scrambling with a derriere full of buckshot, etc. But even when these incidents are all they’re presented to be (and not all are) it’s often hard to know (a) how they would have played out had no gun been involved and (b) whether they even would have occurred at all had no gun been involved.
Gunsters, of course, are convinced they know the answers, particularly the first. Their presumption about defensive gun uses (DGUs) is that without a gun, the putative defender would have ended up dead or at least victimized. But bear in mind that the gun is the easy solution; and very often, the easy solution leaves much to be desired. Blowing out someone’s brains is not a good alternative to using your own.
Whatever the outcome of gun-involved encounters, there’s little doubt that some unspecified portion of them would not have occurred at all had not the alleged defender been armed. We get a clear indication from examining in detail the reports of specific DGUs that the alleged defenders had been indulging in what’s known as risk compensation. which is to say that whenever there is an increased level of security, we tend to compensate for it by increasing our level of recklessness.
In some activities (e.g., driving a vehicle) the added risk may be less than the risk reduction as a result of an added safety measure (e.g., seat belts). But when it comes to firearms, it appears that the added risk is greater, and perhaps much greater, than the risk reduction. One study of incidents in Philadelphia found that
(a)fter adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)
If these results are typical, it’s hard to see how guns possibly could make us safer.
But what if you just keep your guns at home? You know, to defend yourself from that horde of home invaders you hear about? Well, keeping one at home actually puts you at greater risk of being burglarized (if nothing else) , since guns are a favored commodity among burglars. It also, of course, increases the odds of suicide or accidental death or injury.
And what if you keep your weapons unloaded and locked up to prevent tragic mishaps? Then you’re going to make it harder to access and use them if confronted by a criminal. Plus, you’re still not going to keep determined thieves from stealing them. And you’re still not going to eliminate the possibility of misuse — the two boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas who went on a murderous rampage at their school did so with rifles that had been locked in a cabinet.
Still, it seems reasonable that there are some circumstances in which it is advisable for civilians to be armed. I’ve never owned a gun in my life, and have fired one perhaps half a dozen times; yet I probably wouldn’t want to be without one if I ever went hiking alone through Alaskan bear territory. But bears don’t shoot back, and the chances would be very slim that an innocent bystander would be shot; so in this case the potential benefits would outweigh the potential hazards. (Even so I’d try to be conscious of whether my being armed would be inspiring me to indulge in unnecessary risk.)
But while a gun, singular, may make a person, singular, safer under some circumstances, it does not follow that guns, plural, make people, plural, safer overall. To justify such a conclusion, we’d have to establish that guns effect a net reduction in crime – that they are used to prevent crimes more often than to commit them. And contrary to what the gun culture consistently maintains, this has by no means been established. We just do not have, nor is it likely that we ever will have, a practical means to determine accurately how often guns are used defensively.
The gunsters will point to “statistics” of anywhere from 65,000 to 2.5 million annual DGUs in the U.S., as calculated by several widely divergent “studies” – most notably that of Dr. Gary Kleck, who came up with the high end figure. You don’t have to be a sociologist or a statistician yourself to spot the primary problem with these “studies”: they are all blatant examples of false advertising. They are packaged as studies showing how often DGUs occur, but they are all actually surveys of how often gun owners claim they occur.
Dr. Kleck may be a respected and respectable scientist in general, but his signature paper is very bad science indeed. He suggests that we should just take the word of the respondents in his project because he doesn’t believe they would lie – even though he’d eliminated many respondents from his tabulations precisely because it was obvious that they were lying!
So let’s get this straight. Gun enthusiasts tend to be very vocal about their perceived “right” to own a gun, and their perceived need for one. It would be fair to conclude, based on their comments, that many of them are absolutely itching for a chance to use their guns, or at least to give the impression that they have done so. And yet you don’t believe that those taking part in an anonymous survey are going to pad the truth just a little bit – even if inadvertently?
When it comes to actual DGU statistics, the best we can do is compile accounts verified by media or law enforcement. There are several such compilations online, almost all of them maintained by staunch “gun rights” proponents who urge their constituents to contribute anecdotes. Yet despite their burning obsession with proving that guns are a basic food group, the best these folks can come up with is somewhere between 1000 and 2000 DGUs per year.
Is it possible that there are additional incidents that don’t get reported? Well, sure. Is it likely that there are enough of them to justify the fantastical totals that the NRA purports? Not by a long shot. (Dr. Kleck would have you believe that only about one in every 1200 to 2500 gets reported!) As we’ve stated before, most incidents that truly warrant armed intervention are also going to warrant police and/or media attention. And while gunsters insist that they are responsible, law-abiding citizens, they also want you to believe that in the vast majority of DGUs, the defender lets the criminal get away without taking appropriate measures to prevent him from striking elsewhere.
But let’s cut them some slack and say that, despite all evidence to the contrary, most DGUs are never reported anywhere. Let’s be even more generous and say that 90 percent don’t – no, hell, let’s be incredibly generous and say that 99 percent don’t. Only one out of a hundred is reported. Let’s continue on our generosity binge and suppose that all of those that do occur, whether reported or not, are genuinely defensive; let’s assume that the defender was an innocent victim, and did absolutely nothing to provoke the incident, and that the use of armed force was necessary and indispensable. Even so, that would amount to, at the very most, some 200,000 DGUs.
Meanwhile, guns are used to commit crimes at least 400,000 times per year in the U.S. This is not a generous guess. It’s not a presumption. It’s not a projection based on a skewed survey posing as a “study”. It’s a bona fide, hard statistic. So do guns really make us safer? Do the math.
The mentality of the American gun culture reflects what I call the Cocoanut Grove Syndrome — a scenario in which the response to a perceived threat does more harm than the threat itself. The Cocoanut Grove was a popular nightclub in Boston during the 1930s and 1940s.. Then one night in 1942, it was the scene of one of the deadliest fires in U.S. history, killing 492 people.
Thing is, most of them probably could have made it out, except that in the stampede toward the exit, they all crowded against the doors, some of which opened inward, and as a result the doors were jammed. The victims’ own panic, in other words, was more deadly than the fire itself. Because of this tragedy, new fire and building regulations were adopted nationwide, sparing many lives in the future – and in the process dealing a crushing blow to those who ardently believe that government interference invariably makes things worse.
A pyromaniac might smugly insist that fires don’t kill, people do; but it’s a pointless point. However you choose to apportion blame, the fire was certainly an integral element of the tragedy. Furthermore, fire regulations, like firearm regulations, are designed to be followed by people, not by their implements of destruction.
Like the panicked patrons at the Cocoanut Grove, gun fanatics perceive a real or imagined danger, namely, the threat of armed criminals, and in their panic they believe that the solution is to rush the door — the door of the local gun dealer. Each looks after what appears to be his or her own interests, unmindful of the fact that selfish interests add up to mob action. Each is convinced that he or she will be the exception who successfully defeats the overwhelming odds of making it to safety through the packed masses. But that’s not quite how things have been turning out.
As an aside, guns tend to piss bears off, is my understanding. One is better off with bear spray and knowledge of bear behavior.
I’ve had to be without my computer for a while and have had to change my email. I’ll comment later and fill in the email field with my most recent one. Sorry I couldn’t access all of your latest posts for quite a while.
Even if simple math, proves, or seriously questions the claims of “gunsters,” those who doubt will likely continue to doubt. For them we all have a God given right to purchase 100 round magazines, bullet proof vests and tons of ammunition online without being refused by many sellers. Why an ordinary citizens has a need for such a defensive and offensive arsenal is quite puzzling but such people will eventually claim that your math is biased or that you are miss-characterizing the way most DGUs go down. And If that doesn’t work (like it doesn’t for many right wing and religious organizations) they will then just say you are outright lying, or that even that the FBI, and every police chief in the country is in on some conspiracy designed to “grab our guns.”
The truth is that what we need are reasonable background checks that can be checked across a national registry, and these should also contain records concerning the mental illnesses of those who cross state lines. If the Virginia Tech student had such information in his files, no one would have allowed him to purchase his weapons legally. And while Holmes legally purchased a semi-automatic rifle at a local gun dealership, a system permitting his mental health issues show up in a background check would have likely stopped his deadly transactions. We don’t have to start denying anyone who is mildly neurotic, or who has ever seen a therapist. My bet is that an experienced therapist more often knows who needs to be watched and who does not, and under that kind of dangerous scenario, they should be legally obligated to notify authorities who can then raise red flags when red flags should be raised.But all the “government’s is out to get us, and guardians of democracy” crap is meaningless and probably spread mostly by the NRA.
All this being said, it will still be difficult for gun shop owners to know who they should and should not approve, when someone does not raise flags on a background check. Bernie Sander’s vote against holding gun manufacturers and gun dealers responsible when a weapon they sell is used in a shooting is the right way for Congress to respond. If that pitfall wasn’t avoided, then all gun dealers everywhere would be afraid to sell any weapon to anyone–let alone cause manufacturers to very likely be forced out of business due to possible liability suites that give no warnings and could never be predicted.
Personally, I think no matter what the statistics are on gun crimes, I would seriously consider arming myself, (sans 100 round magazines, body armor, or case after case of ammunition) if I lived in a high crime area—self defense has always been an important point of law. But all the hysterical thinking, paranoia, and lies, spread by the NRA need to stop. Under the constitution, armed militias answer to the commander in chief, and its an act of treason to violently defy ones own government just because you may not agree with its political goals.Most Democrats are not out to take away our guns. They and other aware people just recognize the danger of returning to a wild wild west mentality.And 2nd Amendment advocate my produce a plethora of poorly thought out excuses, or may feel picked on and paranoid whenever their irrational fears raise their heads, but plain and simple laws that can prevent at at least SOME shooter from going on a rampage are sorely needed. And the authority and duty of our government to protect the public’s wetware in matters like this has always been one of its most basic and vital functions. It’s just silly to think otherwise!
[…] aggressive warfare promotes peace; and that an armed populace is an effective safeguard against crime and tyranny. Such beliefs, and many others, have ruled the world; and yet they are unsupported by […]