Does A Gun Protect You From Crime? A New Study Says You Should Just Run Away.

If there is one issue more than any other which divides the two sides in the great gun argument, it’s whether guns are an effective deterrent against crime.  The controversy has been raging since advocacy for and against gun ownership escalated during the debate over the 1994 Brady bill and again when Clinton pushed through his omnibus bill on crime.  Basically the argument came down to what I call the social utility of gun ownership; i.e., do the risks of guns outweigh the benefits or is it the other way around?

The latest entry in this field is a study that analyzes more than 14,000 ‘personal contact’ crimes between 2007 and 2011, meaning that the victim and the perpetrator had some degree of contact during the crime incident itself.  The good news about this study is that it covers a very large number of criminal incidents; the bad news is that like all studies based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, it is based solely on the testimonies of the victims themselves. Which means that the information cannot be corroborated by another source, but at least the respondent is asked to provide a great deal of specific information about what actually took place.

gun crimes                The researchers, David Hemenway and Sara Solnick, have utilized the NCVS data to create what they call an ‘epidemiology’ of gun use, with the intention of trying to figure out the degree to which people used guns to protect themselves from crimes.  This issue of frequency has been the hot-button question in the gun argument over the past twenty years, spurred largely by Gary Kleck’s 1994 defensive gun use (DGU) study which claimed that Americans used guns to thwart crimes upwards of several million times each year. Kleck’s study was based on complete interviews with less than 125 respondents, none of whom were asked to define or describe the alleged criminal event which a gun helped them to forestall.  There was also no attempt to compare the outcome of using a gun to prevent a crime as opposed to other methods that individuals might use to make themselves safe from criminal attack.

This new study, on the other hand, seeks to address the gaps in Kleck’s work and the work of others, and the results, not surprisingly, cast the value of defensive gun use in a very different light. To begin, the number of times that people use guns as opposed to other ways of defending themselves is very slight; less than 1% of the 14,000 respondents used a gun against their attacker, whereas more than 40% defended themselves or their property in some other way. Men were three times more likely to use a gun to defend themselves, they were also more likely than women to get involved in DGUs away from the home, and men used guns more for defense against assaults while women favored using guns to protect their property from being damaged or taken away.

The important finding from the study, it seems to me, is not the relatively low frequency of DGUs as opposed to other self-defense methods, but the degree to which using a gun as a defense against crime reduces the chance of injury to the victim.  Slightly more than 4% of the victims were injured during the criminal incident, the percentage of injuries suffered by victims who used other ways to defend themselves was the same.  The bottom line is that a gun will protect you from crime, but it won’t protect you better than yelling for help, threatening to call police, or just running away.

On the other hand, what public health and other gun-safety advocates need to understand is that even if the data doesn’t support the idea, statistically speaking, that guns can protect us against crime, the fact is that many people believe that a gun is the most effective antidote to their fear of crime, and it’s often what we believe rather than what we know that determines the choices we make.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Does A Gun Protect You From Crime? A New Study Says You Should Just Run Away.

  1. Well a lot depends on who comprised the 14,000. If the sample came from an urban area that has stricter gun laws especially concerning conceald carry, then it would follow that there would be less gun owners and a corsponding lower number of CCW. If the sample was from Chicago or New York or California, then of course the numbers would look adverse to the gun argument.

    Basically your blog has provided zero facts from which to base a logically unbiased conclusion.

    I’ve had a CCW for years, but my work prohibits me carrying at work. So for me, predominantly the odds are that I will not have my gun when I need it. I tolerate this due to the fact that they pay very well and overall crime is down. However, if I could carry at all times, I would. Even carrying at all times, the odds of me becoming a victim is still quite low. It’s the random once in a blue moon occasion that no one “plans” for.

    Should I find myself in that occasion facing a bad guy, I would rather have one of my guns to back me up then to hope I can still punch my way out. I’m too old and out of shape to be trading punches with some punk.

  2. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc

    Here is Marvin Wolfgang’s own words.

    Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, who described himself “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country” and whose opinion of guns was “I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns–ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people” defended Kleck’s methodology, saying “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator”. He went on to say that the NCVS survey did not contradict the Kleck study and that “I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.” [16][17]

  3. David Hemenway is Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. He has a B.A. (1966) and Ph.D.(1974) from Harvard University in economics. He is the director of the anti-gun Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. He is best known for his strong anti-gun positions, where he has proudly proclaimed that “I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss”[1]

    Yeah, he sounds like an objective person without an agenda.

Leave a Reply