Do Guns Protect Us From Crime?

              Now that the reaction to last week’s mass shootings has become yet another Twitter battle between Trump and the Democrats, the real issue behind the gun-control debate has receded into the background but I’ll try to put it front and center again. The real issue is not whether Americans should be able to own guns. The real issue is what kinds of guns should they be able to own.

              We suffer more than 125,000 fatal and non-fatal gun injuries each year because we are the only country with a gun-regulatory system which allows people to own weapons which were designed to do one thing and one thing only – kill human beings. You don’t shoot a bird out of a tree with a Glock. You don’t shoot Bambi with an AR.  But the guy who comes into my gun shop and buys some rusted, old shotgun to shoot a squirrel that’s eating his tomato plants jumps through the same legal hoops as the guy who walks in and buys a Glock 19 and a couple of high-capacity mags. And if he also buys an AR with some 30-round mags, we still do only one, 30-second background check.

              The reason that this absurd regulatory system continues to be seen as the cornerstone upon which we can somehow create policies that will reduce gun violence is because a majority of Americans are convinced that they need to own one of these man-killing guns in order to protect themselves from something, whatever that something happens to be. Is your home safer with or without a gun? The public opinion surveys indicate that the most frequent answer to that question will be ‘yes.’ 

              Another indication of the consensus about the value of gun ownership has been the growth of concealed-carry licenses, as well as the number of states which let people walk around with a gun without having to undergo any licensing procedure at all. There are now 15 states where anyone who can pass the FBI-NICS background check can walk around with a concealed gun. As for concealed-carry licenses, or what is usually referred to as CCW (concealed-carry weapon), the number is now somewhere above 17 million, and if we assume that there are (for the sake of argument) that there are at least 20 million gun owners in the ‘Constitutional-carry’ states, this means that probably somewhere around 40 million Americans can wander the highways and byways toting a gun.

              Our friend John Lott has calculated the per-capita number of CCW licenses and you can see a list of the 13 states where at least one out of every 10 adult residents has a license to carry a gun. I have compared the per-capita number of CCW-holders in those 13 states with the gun-homicide rate in those same 13 states and the results are here:

              Note that of the 13 states with the highest per-capita rate of  CCW, seven of them also have a gun-violence rate which is higher than the national gun-violence rate of 4.46. With the exception of Washington and Iowa, the states with lower gun-violence than the national average are all Western states whose CCW numbers obviously reflect a long history and tradition of personal gun ownership. On the other hand, the high rates of gun violence in states like Alabama, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc., all reflect the overwhelming incidence of gun violence in inner-city zones within those states.

              To me, these numbers may indicate that Americans who consider owning a gun for personal protection may not just be buying into some clever marketing scheme (read: scam) of the gun industry. Many live in states where gun violence is more of a daily event than what is covered in the national media, and the opinions of these folks might be more sensitive to local news reports that hit closer to home.

              Thinking about guns as a response to fear may strike some as odd but we need to understand those fears if we are really committed to talking about gun violence with people who own guns.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Do Guns Protect Us From Crime?

  1. Mike, you sort of hit on something that has been gnawing at me. The usual researchers are telling us that shall-issue and RTC is associated with more crime. “Associated” is definitely the correct term. But in reality, is it people with shall-issue or more generally, RTC people driving up violent crime? I wonder if the cause/effect is that more crime in the usual areas drives more people to get CHL’s or to buy guns and thus cause and effect are reversed from what the gun control crowd says.

    That’s not to say more guns make us safer, since most permits are issued in places where the crime is not, but I think both sides are seriously guilty of question begging and confirmation bias.

    Seems to me that gun ownership has evolved from traditional gun nuttery, hunting, and target shooting to keeping a “man killing” Glock by the bedstand (obviously, grandpa’s 30/30 is just as good at man-killing, but that has not been its intended purpose). The implicit message is that the solutions to our social woes are solved at 1150 feet per second (a little higher for +P). That is the problem in a nutshell.

  2. “Peterson has interviewed living mass shooters in prison and people who knew such perpetrators and has found that these individuals often start out feeling suicidal.

    “We can show about 80 percent were actively suicidal prior to the shooting,” she says”

    Comment : And since suicide is not a mental health problem it shows the shootings have nothing to do with mental health.

    Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows

  3. “Thinking about guns as a response to fear may strike some as odd … ” Hell, no – that is the nut of it. I’ve lived in or near the Big City for better than half a Century and in reading the reports of gun violence and resultant interviews with survivors and bystanders and neighbors, their fear of guns – handguns, almost without exception – is palpable in their statements, so it’s readily understandable that for many, the logical step to take after a shooting event is simply to get a gun to defend against an unknown crazy who’s probably already got one from somewhere, somehow. The personality profile of the other type of gun owner, who invariably possesses a handgun or two or three or more with the possible addition of a long gun, or two or three or more, themselves being more than a few that I’ve talked with, includes the bright spot of a nagging seedling of unabashed paranoia – these folks readily admit that they’re never likely to have need of a firearm for personal defense, but, just, because, you know, who knows, stuff happens, can never tell when, so always gotta be ready, so I’ve got this thing in my belt. Always, And ain’t nobody gonna keep me from having that cold steel to comfort me from the ever-present and ongoing fear which I refuse to acknowledge is at the core of my beliefs.

    • except I’ve never been in a car accident where either the airbags deployed or my seatbelt came into play…..but I still use them. I also have fire extinguishers but have never experienced a fire where one was needed. I keep my Red Cross first aid and CPR current, but I’ve never used that.

      By your logic there are a LOT of “Paranoid” people out there.

Leave a Reply