Once again, the opposition gives me the resources I need to counter them. Too bad I'm already too cynical to believe that truth will win over emotion.
In the wake of a criminal atrocity, the anti-gun crowd is pushing for more legislation. I already mentioned the Law of the Instrument and my views on legislation. Instead I'll go for the argument of "Why would anyone need a gun anyway; they're just intended to kill and maim". I'll ignore the superstitious aspect of perceived "intent" being manufactured into an object, and address self-defense versus criminal, accidental, and intentionally self-inflicted deaths and injuries. "Intended to kill and maim", as though violence is automatically wrong, no matter what. If THAT is your view, then please simply use THAT as your argument rather than the illegitimate arguments made by the anti-gun crowd, which I'm about to use to prove my point anyway. Moving on...
Apparently, the Violence Policy Center thinks “Guns are
rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.” (Violence Policy Center, 2013,
p. 1) (emphasis is mine). They recognize that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the
total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of
attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700”
(Violence Policy Center, 2013, p. 9), and further report that “there were only 230
justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program”
(Violence Policy Center, 2013, p. 1), as though killing an attacker is the
desired outcome. No, stopping the attack is the desired outcome; the criminal’s
health is of little concern until the intended-victim’s security is assured.
Interesting (note sarcasm font) despite an average of 67,740
instances of Americans using guns in self-defense per year during the reported
period, according to their statistics, which refuse to break-down successful
instances from unsuccessful ones. Why would they, if they want to maintain the
integrity of their study, not make that distinction? Either way, that’s a LOT
of legitimate defensive uses to be referred to with the word “only”.
“But what about all of the injuries, not just deaths, Rick”.
Ok, I’ll go there also. According to the Gun Violence Archive, which only shows
totals back to 2014, there were 51,881 instances of firearms-related violence
in the U.S. in 2014 (Gun Violence Archive, 2017). That’s deaths and injuries of all legal
classifications. While a statistician wouldn’t agree with this method, I’m
looking for ballpark figures, so I’ll overlap data using the average from the FBI
study quoted by the VPC and say there were a total of 51,881 instances of
firearms injuries and deaths, and 67,740 instances of civilians using firearms
in legitimate self-defense. That gives us almost 16,000 more self-defense uses
than murders, suicides, and accidents. That means that approximately 1.3 people
use a gun in self-defense for every one that is hurt or killed by the use of
one. That doesn’t even control for the Gun Violence Archive’s numbers still
including justifiable homicides and law enforcement shootings. Removing those
would push it even higher. And these are the conservative, anti-gun figures!! Imagine if I went with strictly neutral or pro-gun statistics!
The Law Center to
Prevent Gun Violence says “In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in
homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings” (Law Center To Prevent Gun
Violence, 2017). Even without controlling for justifiable homicides by
civilians, and law enforcement shootings, but simply lumping all intentional
shootings together, Americans are still approximately 2.14 times more likely to
use a gun in self-defense than for murder, suicide, or to accidentally shoot themselves
or someone else based on that statistic and the VPC/FBI study.
VPC got their statistics from an FBI study, then left out
some important parts that didn’t fit their narrative, but I chose to not
emphasize that.
Now we’ll go from the blatantly anti-gun groups to the
neutral government statistics. According to a report commissioned by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Self-defense can be an important
crime deterrent” (Institute of Medicine, et al, 2013). This during the Obama
administration, so I’d like to think they weren’t influenced to a pro-gun
stance. “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of
guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the
sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower
injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other
self-protective strategies,” (Institute of Medicine, 2013).
The study commissioned by the anti-gun administration found
that you’re safer using a gun in self-defense than with any other tool or
technique of defending yourself.
Everybody fighting to get rid of guns keeps making my points
for me: you’re safer with a gun than without. Empirical evidence, not emotional
knee-jerk reactions to criminal atrocities. If you want to consider “feelings”
as the deciding factor, then I FEEL safer with a gun, and it happens that
science backs me up. So is science great when it validates your viewpoint, but not when it supports mine? My emotions won't be legitimate when they don't agree with you, but yours are when they disagree with me?
I know I’m imprecise; the data didn’t allow for strict
statistical integrity, but I tried to keep it as close as possible given the
resources, time, and fatigue levels available. When producing anything like this, I refuse to use pro-gun sources.
Only anti-gun organizations and government agencies (which should be neutral,
but normally side with the anti-gun people), that way my sources aren’t biased
towards my viewpoint.
With that qualification out of the way, roast me. Where am I so horribly wrong that all of my argument is invalid? Overturn my method (other than what I've already admitted is flawed) and say "Rick, HERE is why guns are evil talismans that turn good people into murders". Just know that I'll fight tooth and nail to find ways to counter YOUR argument with the most legitimate data I can find.
And if your argument simply rests on a dislike of violence, I will grant that reasoning validity, if not applicability in reality. Dislike violence all you want, it is still the basis from which human beings operate. You don't want people to engage in any violence? How are you going to enforce that without the threat of violence? You don't have to like or dislike it; it simply IS, and praying or meditating isn't going to change that.
Quite the opposite, people who use violence for criminal gain will victimize those who refuse to use violence, unless they're stopped by those who use violence for the good of society and humanity. Again: you don't have to like or dislike it; it simply IS.
Go ahead and practice nonviolence. I respect that. It's beautiful. But you would be well-served remembering that you are protected by those who are willing to use violence on your behalf.
Oh, yah, and the police you are relying on to protect you? They have NO constitutional obligation to do so. They are absolutely permitted to sit at lunch while you're slaughtered, and they'll win in court (see DeShaney v.
Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales for two of the many Supreme
Court's decisions on the matter). Your choices are somewhat limited. You may throw the dice and rely on government agencies to protect you, knowing that they're not required to; you can procure a means of self-defense, which will involve violence on your part; or you may practice nonviolence and be victimized by those who don't. I don't like the first or last choices, but I'm not you.
One last point: Why the F'k were suppressors brought into the argument? Stephen Paddock didn't use one. Not even close. All of the arguments about how a suppressor might have made the massacre worse are based on absolute ignorance of what suppressors are and how they work. No, he would NOT have magically been able to kill a bunch more people without being found. Why do you insist on starting from an utter lack of technical knowledge on the subject? Are you afraid that actually knowing something outside of the movie theater will negate the validity of your argument? Well, you're right, but that shouldn't stop you!
Gun Violence Archive. (2017). Past Summary Ledgers. Retrieved
from
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
on October 4, 2017.
Institute of Medicine, et al. (2013). Priorities for
Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related
Violence.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2017). Statistics on
Gun Deaths & Injuries. Retrieved from
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
on October 4, 2017.
Violence Policy Center. (2013, April). Firearm Justifiable
Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense
Gun Use An
Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization
Survey Data. Retrieved
from http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
on October 4, 2017.
