Does carrying a gun actually make you safer?
I went searching for some scientifically rigorous data on this question today, after being bombarded by conservative relations, friends, acquaintances and SLOG readers today regarding a gentleman who defended his garage (undoubtedly filled with mountains of useless junk that should be thrown out) from two burglars, by killing one and seriously injuring another human being with his vaunted handgun.
Citing this gun owners’ actions—right now costing state and federal taxpayers tens if not hundreds of thousands in medical bills for his victim, but saving that junk in his garage—as proof that guns make you, me and everyone safer is a bit like saying, “I totally know this guy who smoked until he was ninety, and then died of a broken hip. Smoking is totes safe, man.”
I’d feel better with some data—pointing us in one direction or another. Here’s what I found.
1. Gun ownership is intrinsically dangerous—particularly to children and abused spouses in the household.
2. People who own guns for personal protection are the least likely to practice safe gun ownership. They are the least likely to store their guns locked up, their ammo locked up and the guns and ammo stored separately.
3. In a case control study—comparing gun owners to non-gun owners—gun owners were more likely to be shot fatally (intentionally or unintentionally) than non-gun owners.
4. Guns in the home for personal protection were frequently used to threaten or intimidate other family members. This most often was done by a male gun-owning family member, to a female member of the household. This family-on-family threatening of gun violence occurred roughly ten times more often than the gun being used to threaten or intimidate an intruder.
5. Fear drives gun ownership for protection. Being a Southerner and male also increases the odds that one will carry a gun for ‘protection.’
6. From a systematic review, How Well Does The Handgun Protect You and Your Family:
Statistics are reviewed which show that a gun in the home is far more likely to lead to the death or injury of a family member or friend than to the death of an intruder. Data on victimizations and the use of firearms for self defense are then examined for the crimes of burglary, robbery, assault, and rape. In each case the effectiveness of guns in preventing or deterring the crime is analyzed, and compared to the effectiveness of other self defense methods. The data presented in this report indicate that private handgun ownership provides no significant deterrent to burglary and violent crime. It may, in fact, escalate the severity of the violence if offenders believe they must be more heavily armed than the citizenry. The statistics also showed that the use of a weapon in resistance to a criminal attack usually results in greater probability of bodily injury or death to the victim. Other methods of resistance, such as flight or verbal resistance, were found to be more effective in aborting the crime while having less probability of causing harm or death to the victim. In circumstances where the offender is armed, non-resistance most likely resulted in the minimum amount of harm to the victim. The authors conclude that because of the surprise nature of most violent crime and the fact that it is likely to occur between strangers, it is improbable that the victim would have time to use the handgun in any event. They argue that in light of the risks of handgun ownership – the possibility of escalating the violence of the crime, and the risk of accidents and suicides among family members – other safer methods of crime prevention must be adopted.
Among pro-gun advocates, the idea carrying a gun makes one safer is pretty much sacrosanct—the cornerstone of the Second Amendment religion that dominates our country. Per the available data, it’s totally and completely wrong; carrying a gun, objectively, make one less safe.
Updated:
One last point: I’m a civil libertarian, and believe all of the rights extended in the Bill of Rights (and more) should be defended—including gun ownership. To state something that should be obvious to everyone, but apparently isn’t: Pointing out the statistically demonstrated risks of exercising those rights isn’t the same as stating they aren’t or shouldn’t be rights. Be noted.
And for the TL;DR crowd:
The firearm fetishist fantasy. The reality.
sounds like it is possible that handgun ownership might make one more likely to die, but less likely to get robbed. so both sides are right?
@157- Yes, I saw your little quote. One quote and a bunch of insults isn’t a convincing argument about statistics. Venomlash has done an excellent job explaining things. You’ve called him stupid. I find Venomlash more convincing.
Every person in America has an inalienable right to bears arms.
The vast majority of them probably shouldn’t, and the more strenuously they defend their right to a gun to more likely it is they shouldn’t. People who own guns because they’re irrationally scared are very likely to use them irrationally.
@162: Well, except my talk about statistics wasn’t about the issue he’s raising; I was responding to Alleged‘s blathering about Scary Negroes.
Ja- please, don’t mistake me for that racist fuck.
@164- OK, you’re not that racist fuck….
So anyway, you’ve got a statistical analysis that contradicts Golob? Something longer than calling us stupid and one out of context quote.
Dave66 –
Did you read the entire survey or just the abstract? You are mis-construing the statement in my reading.
That statement referred to several specific tests regarding rates of ownership, reasons for ownership, etc. Their study found a very large variation throughout different communities within Wisconsin. However, the statement that Dr. Golob made regarding safe storage was in fact validated across the board by the data.
So, no, the study is not useless in informing public policy. I really don’t see how that is very difficult to understand…
So what is it that is stopping you naive white Seattle libtard gun-haters from putting a sign In your front windows that reads “PROUD TO BE A GUN-FREE HOME”. ? Walk your talk you white Seattle wimp libtard hypocrites (sorry about the redundancy of the last 4 words in that sentence).
darn Junior aren’t you afraid one night you might accidentally jab your two stiffened fingers in between your own clavicles causing yourself accidental grievous injury?
it must be terrifying to sleep with such lethal weapons as your two stiffened fingers so close….
@168- In the meantime, you don’t have to worry because nothing stiffens around your bed.
I fear I may be the last commenter and I want to hear Golob’s opinion on crime/death in Vermont which has the most lax handgun laws in America. (no permit required to carry) Also, why are cities than ban handgun ownership outright (D.C., Baltimore) so dangerous? Lastly, if guns are the problem why are Cananda and Switzerland so safe? Cananda has more guns per capita
and all able bodied Swiss males have assault weapons in their houses for national guard service.
I meant Canada.
dwightmoodyforgetsthings,
do the mentally inhibited have a right to own a gun?
why not?
safety?
@170- America’s culture is the reason why we shoot each other so often. High crime cities banned guns AFTER they became high crime cities.
@172- If they’re competent to exercise their other rights as citizens, yes. Why did you assume I was going to say no?
I read up to about 109 before skipping to the end, so pardon me if someone has already said this.
Perhaps there is a “crowd” effect going on in some places: if there is a perception of common gun-ownership, perhaps some potential criminals decide not to commit said crime. But if person X on that block is the one person not owning a gun, he could get the benefits of the rest of the crowd owning guns without the risks of owning one himself. Like the crowd effect seen in community vaccination programs.
So the evidence from the different studies might be complimentary after all. One could then debate whether being a gun-owning country is good or bad in the aggregate, but I doubt that is a debate with any real end-game in the US.
@174- Except areas with high gun ownership are not immune to crime.
You’re probably right. I for one am an ideologically-driven anti-gun nut. But the scientist in me wanted to offer an alternate explanation for the seemingly-contradictory evidence.
Golob: …regarding a gentleman who defended his garage (undoubtedly filled with mountains of useless junk that should be thrown out) from two burglars, by killing one and seriously injuring another human being with his vaunted handgun.
Yes, burglars are human beings. This means they should have the right to break into your garage (or home) without being harmed.
The argument is weak because it is statistical.
A lot of things if done carelessly are dangerous. Cars are very dangerous to drive, statistically. So is carrying a gun. Yet many well-trained cops and military people, can operate vehicles safely, and guns safely. You’d essentially have to argue that cops and military should NOT have guns, or cars, because they are unsafe, in order to have anything more than a statistical argument.
And the statistical argument is pretty weak because it assumes you are untrained, ignorant, are willing to have the outcome of the “average” person rather than an expert, and so forth. By all means if you don’t want to train with a gun, rehearse how to keep cool in dangerous situations, etc, then of course don’t carry, it will just make you more dangerous. That’s all the statistical argument is pointing out. Ignorance is dangerous.
In related news, butter is more dangerous than both guns and cars. Because people ignorant of physical health eat it and then become fat and develop health complications…
Also someone made an argument about a mugging being a dangerous situation where guns would not help, therefore guns have no use in making one safe. Again it comes down to training and the particular situation. If you have concealed carry and the mugger doesn’t find your firearm, and you’re well trained, then you should almost always be able to make yourself safer. Because instead of being a “hero” you can do the smart thing, and always try to maximize your safety. Pull out the arm only if it will improve your odds of living. For example if they have the advantage just wait until you are safe, or run. If you have gained a safe distance on a mugger who is unarmed or armed with a knife, now you have the advantage, and you can do whatever you want depending on what makes you feel safest. Or if they have a gun you could act like you’re unarmed and comply, which won’t change your odds of surviving at all. But if they decide to shoot at you, then of course it gets dicey, maybe the thing to do would be to run for cover. Or you could shoot back at them which could potentially improve your chances of living, over being a passive target (depending on the situation and your judgment). Or maybe you have a really quick draw that you’ve trained for. Or if you make it to cover you could send out a few shots as cover fire to hopefully dissuade the attacker. Who knows. It’s your call. But you’d have to argue that people cannot make good judgments at all, in order to say that the gun makes the person being mugged inherently less safe. Otherwise it just comes down to the training of the individual.
The thing is, there’s no credible, rational argument that carrying makes one less safe in every circumstance. They are all ideological arguments driven by gun politics. An analogous argument would be “Is carrying a katana going to make you less safe?” Let’s say you’re untrained and think you’re a badass and pull out a katana in a mugging. Now you’ve just become incredibly unsafe. But if there’s a well trained samurai with a katana who’s mugged by someone unarmed, or armed with a knife, man I’d be betting on the samurai. And guns of course have the additional advantage that you can conceal them, in certain jurisdictions.
Actually, all philosophizing aside. The FBI is kind enough to keep statistics on crime prevention. The presence of an armed citizen prevents crime, often without a shot being fired thousands of times a year. An additional tidbit they keep, is the types of crimes and the weapons used. Most robbers, muggers and rapists use no weapon at all (they are just bigger and meaner). Those who use a weapon are most likely to have a knife or blunt trauma weapon. Those who resist criminals are less likely to be harmed than those who willing “walk back to the storage room,” and my favorite irrefutable fact, the Texas Department of Public safety keeps crime statistics on only two identifiable groups, peace officers and concealed license holders. In Texas at least CHL holders are the most law abiding and safe group in history. I’m sorry to say, much safer and law abiding than the other identifiable group.
In closing, all the constitutional amendments are important and with responsibility does come some risk of harm. We have collectively decided that those rights are sufficiently important that the risks are to be tolerated. Otherwise we would shut down those who print subversive books, put the guilty in jail with out the expense of trial, search everyone because only the guilty have anything to hide and we would all go to the approved churches on Sunday.
Actually, all philosophizing aside. The FBI is kind enough to keep statistics on crime prevention. The presence of an armed citizen prevents crime, often without a shot being fired thousands of times a year. An additional tidbit they keep, is the types of crimes and the weapons used. Most robbers, muggers and rapists use no weapon at all (they are just bigger and meaner). Those who use a weapon are most likely to have a knife or blunt trauma weapon. Those who resist criminals are less likely to be harmed than those who willing “walk back to the storage room,” and my favorite irrefutable fact, the Texas Department of Public safety keeps crime statistics on only two identifiable groups, peace officers and concealed license holders. In Texas at least CHL holders are the most law abiding and safe group in history. I’m sorry to say, much safer and law abiding than the other identifiable group.
In closing, all the constitutional amendments are important and with responsibility does come some risk of harm. We have collectively decided that those rights are sufficiently important that the risks are to be tolerated. Otherwise we would shut down those who print subversive books, put the guilty in jail with out the expense of trial, search everyone because only the guilty have anything to hide and we would all go to the approved churches on Sunday.