A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack.Nice manipulation, Paul Harris. This is a total misrepresentation of conclusions by anti-gun researcher Arthur L. Kellermann. Here's what his findings actually stated:
For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.
There's a vast gulf of possibile outcomes between a DGU, which does not require a shot even being fired, and a "self-protection homicide," but the agenda-driven Paul Harris won't let his readers know that.
Tell me, Paul--when you set out to become an "authorized journalist," did you have your heart set on specializing in propaganda?
1 comment:
Deja Vu! Didn't we already discuss swimming pools and accidental death by firearm? Whomever is studying it from this angle is going about it the wrong way, and it's presented without qualification.
Only the preliminary mortality data is available from the CDC for 2005, but I still have the complete 2004 publication. Here are the leading causes of death:
1--Diseases of heart--649399
2--Malignant neoplasms--559300
3--Cerebrovascular diseases--143497
4--Chronic lower respiratory diseases--130957
5--Accidents (unintentional injuries)--114876
6--Diabetes mellitus --74817
7--Alzheimer's disease--71696
8--Influenza and pneumonia--62804
9--Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis--43679
10--Septicemia--34142
11--Intentional self-harm (suicide)--31769
12--Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis--27393
13--Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease--24865
14--Parkinson's disease--19547
15--Assault (homicide)--17694
(Source: CDC Preliminary Mortality Data 2005)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/preliminarydeaths05_tables.pdf#B
The "accidents" category contains accidental death by discharge of firearm, which was 730 for 290 million people in 2003. (Source: CDC NVSS Final 2004) Death resulting from accidental discharge of a firearm was a little less than seven-tenths of a percent of the total accidental deaths listed in NVSS 04. Note that homicide with firearms is last on the list and comparatively small. The suicide rate appears to be about the same between the two reports, with suicide using a firearm historically being a little more than half of the cases.
Disarmers have to make their case in such a backward fashion due to the fact that an increasing number of guns in the hands of most people doesn't cause crime (you can only shoot one at a time), that firearms don't cause suicide, that possession of a firearm usually has the opposite effect on victim-hood, that high-risk areas for homicide are clumped in certain parts of the country, and that the aforementioned areas are also where there are the most highly-restrictive gun possession laws. (Usually de facto bans, which preceded the highest recorded violent crime rates.)
As for the individual statements by the author which are less than truthful or unsupported:
"Guns, and the violence their possessors inflict, have never been more prevalent in America."
False. The most violence occurs only in certain areas of large urban centers of population. The violent crime rate was much higher in the mid-1990s.
"Gun crime has risen steeply over the past three years."
False. It has risen 2.5 percent. It fell to 1970s levels from its previous peak in the 1990s. (I'm assuming here that the disarmer code-word "guncrime" translates to "violent crime" due to its context.
"Despite the fact groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) consistently claim they are being victimized, there have probably never been so many guns or gun-owners in America"
We could also state that there have never been so many people in America. Gun ownership rates were probably higher earlier this century (per capita, not respective of multiple possession) when hunting was more prevelent -- especially during the Depression. Neither of us have reliable statistics to back up our claims. However, it needs to be pointed out that restricted possession is different from right-to-carry, and that neither is an indicator of actual carry, which is the only relevant statistic for this discussion.
"One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one. Such a staggering number makes America's gun culture thoroughly mainstream."
Is that relevant? Or is it just an attempt to scare the people who believe that the presence of a gun unequivocally results in someone's death? What is the upper threshold for this effect? I know of one local who sold off a good part of his collection, and still has over 150 rifles left to sell. He obviously didn't commit suicide, didn't accidentally kill himself, and since he's still living at home we may conclude that he's not serving time in prison for violent crimes.
"An average of almost eight people aged under 19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US - with 400 of the victims children."
According to NVSS 04, 235 of the 17,732 homicides had victims under the age of 15. The next age category is 15-24 years. Some of these are technically children, but they are also street fighters in rough neighborhoods. The risk is not uniform, it is confined to certain urban areas where the violent crime rate rose in spite of decades worth of gun ownership restrictions and de facto bans. I care about violent crime more than I care about "gunmurders", whatever those are.
"There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year."
That statement is unqualified. It is 16,000 out of about 31,000, presuming there is such a thing as an "average year". About 10,000 more people died from falling (unintentional) than from suicide using a firearm, and almost five times as many people died from accidental exposure to fire and smoke than from accidental discharge of firearms, despite the fact that gravity and fire have been with us since long before recorded history. Six-hundred-fifty deadly accidents per 290 million people is an extremely low rate. The only things at an anomalously high rate are the hysterics exercised by disarmers.
"Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century."
Yet during this same period, more firearm restrictions have been placed on the possession and carrying of firearms and related items than at any other time in the history of the country. Far greater numbers have perished due to many other preventable causes, and with more geographical uniformity that ultimately represents greater risk for the individual American.
"Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered."
Studies which shall remain anonymous. This particular study has apparently discovered that women who inhabit a home with a violent criminal will end up dead most of the time, but doesn't specify whether or not the weapon was in possession of the murderer or the victim. (It doesn't take Hercule Poirot to solve this mystery.)
"A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defense against an attack."
Was this figure from the same study? Can someone dig up this study? A gun in the home isn't useful for defense, but rather a gun in the hands of the defender. Considering the rate of accidental death with a firearm, the suicide rate and the homicide rate, I would have to determine that the preparer of this study employed some heretofore unknown statistical method to counter other non-anonymous studies that show defensive use in the millions.
"[Katz] brought her cause to court under a state law that gives licensed gun-owners the right to bring a firearm to work: her school is her workplace. Such a debate would have been unthinkable a few decades ago."
A few decades ago schools hosted shooting teams on school property, and no one was murdered.
"...the NRA has transformed into the most effective lobbying group in Washington DC..."
No more obvious, I suppose, than by the fact that firearm ownership is banned in DC, except for the politically-connected and certain government workers.
"In 2000 Vice-President Al Gore supported stricter background checks for gun-buyers..."
He gives the impression that a mandatory NICS check for every commercially sold firearm is not sufficiently strict.
"But there are deeper issues at work too. The gun lobby's main argument is that guns protect their owners. They deter criminals and attackers whom - the gun lobby points out helpfully - are often armed themselves."
Which is true, and the disarmers agree, which is why their "total bans" exclude police, military and their own private security detail. (And they also agree on the rights aspect, which is why the scramble to get a lesser charge than a felony when a fellow law enforcer uses a firearm in the course of a crime -- thank you David Codrea.) It's an inescapable truth that protecting oneself at the precise moment of the attack is more efficient and effective than legal proceedings after the fact. It also helps to understand that the firearm is a 500 year old technology that isn't going to disappear.
"It is a powerful argument."
I thank him for acknowledging this. Now stop trying to dictate when I can and cannot defend my own life, family, body and property. Let's stop calling it the "frontier spirit" and start calling it by its real name: Liberty.
Post a Comment