Monday, December 17, 2012

Guns Put Children, Women At Greatest Risk

I wrote this for the Cap Times on 3/15/2004 when I was a monthly op-ed contributor.  If I could format a boxed inset, it would include these grafs:

Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. 

     That's one self-defense shooting for 22 accidental, suicidal or criminal shootings -- hardly support for the notion that having a gun handy makes people safer.
 

    Other studies show that women and children are disproportionately the victims of such gunshots, and that when children commit suicide, guns in their home or at their friends or relatives' homes are used.

GUNS MAKE US LESS SAFE
     Gov. Jim Doyle's barely sustained veto of the bill to legalize the carrying of concealed weapons in Wisconsin guarantees that the gun lobby will push even harder for the right to put guns in wider circulation.

 
     Proponents and their mouthpieces in the Legislature have pledged to sweep opponents of concealed carry out of office. It's important for the opponents to hone their message because the National Rifle Association and pro-guns groups in Wisconsin have made concealed carry a top priority.


     One of the problems with the recent debate was its focus on whether states that have concealed carry laws have seen declining crime rates. Both sides cited studies that showed crimes either declining or increasing in concealed carry states.


     But there is no uniform scientific method to study crime occurrence, rates and trends. Time frames, databases, definitions and outside variables differ from state to state and from study to study, and the result is a fight among experts without a clear winner.


    The opponents of concealed carry, however, do have one irrefutable statistical and argumentative advantage. So remember these two questions and one number, and make it the core of opposing concealed carry:


     Q. Do guns that are available for self-defense make people safer?


     A. No.


     Q. How much less safe?


     A. 22 times less safe.


     A gun in the home -- thus available for self-defense -- is 22 times more likely to be used in an assault or homicide, an accidental shooting or a suicide or attempted suicide.


     Researchers reached this conclusion by studying hospital admissions, emergency medical technician reports, police and medical examiner files in 626 shootings in or around a residence in three cities: Galveston, Texas; Seattle, Wash.; and Memphis, Tenn., for between 12 and 18 months.


    The study was published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, in August 1998, by Dr. Arthur Kellerman of Emory University in Atlanta and four other authors. Their study was supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


    In those shootings studied by Kellerman and the co-authors, only 13 were in self-defense or were legally justifiable, and that included three shootings by law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty.


    By contrast, 54 shootings were unintentional, 118 were attempted or completed suicides, and the vast majority of these shootings -- 438 -- were assaults or homicides.

 
     Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

     That's one self-defense shooting for 22 accidental, suicidal or criminal shootings -- hardly support for the notion that having a gun handy makes people safer.


    Other studies show that women and children are disproportionately the victims of such gunshots, and that when children commit suicide, guns in their home or at their friends or relatives' homes are used.


    These facts, the sad headlines, and the huge medical bills and family traumas behind them, are even more numbing when you consider that guns kept at home are supposed to be locked away to prevent their misuse.

    Common sense would dictate that a lethal weapon be kept secure and unavailable, but the rates of accidental and suicidal shootings suggest these guns are not kept under lock and key.


    Instead they are readily, and recklessly and painfully, available to the wrong hands -- which Kellerman and his colleagues showed happens -- by a factor of 22.


     Now consider that the gun lobby wants to make it legal to bring some of these guns out of the house, without a closet door or trigger lock to prevent their accidental or criminal use, and into the stresses and surprises of everyday life.

    Put those guns in someone's pocket, or in the car, or a briefcase, backpack or purse and you logically increase the likelihood that there will be an accidental or wrongful discharge. Such as a split-second and irrevocable pull of a trigger in response to a perceived threat or in a moment of road rage.


   Or when someone is handed a pink slip. Or in a domestic argument after one too many beers.

    * The core of the argument for concealed carry is that guns make people safer. The presence of guns in the home -- by a factor of 22 on the wrong side of the equation -- shows that firearms that could be used in self-defense actually make many more people unsafe, injured and dead.


    Isn't that number 22 already big enough?
  

14 comments:

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

And the response of the NRA to this study was to pressure legislators to de-fund the CDC and create legislation preventing the CDC from ever doing such a study again.

Which is why I referred to it as an "NRA slaughter".

PointingOutStatisticalDeception. said...

While we are talking statistics...
1) There are 310 million guns in the United States.
2) There are approximately 30,000 firearms related deaths every year.
3) For every death caused by one firearm, more than 10,300 guns are NOT attributed to a death.

Let's take gun limited laws to the extreme. If legislation was passed prohibiting gun ownership, would your magic number 22 drop to zero? Of course not. A huge percentage of the crimes you cite were caused by illegally owned guns. Legislation will not change the use of those guns.

You said, "...and that when children commit suicide, guns in their home or at their friends or relatives' homes are used."

If these guns were eliminated, would the suicides drop to zero?

You've provided one step to curb the likelihood of a legally owned gun being used in a firearms death:

Common sense would dictate that a lethal weapon be kept secure and unavailable, but the rates of accidental and suicidal shootings suggest these guns are not kept under lock and key.


In other words, responsible ownership.

You said, "Now consider that the gun lobby wants to make it legal to bring some of these guns out of the house, without a closet door or trigger lock to prevent their accidental or criminal use, and into the stresses and surprises of everyday life."

And continued with, "Put those guns in someone's pocket, or in the car, or a briefcase, backpack or purse and you logically increase the likelihood that there will be an accidental or wrongful discharge. Such as a split-second and irrevocable pull of a trigger in response to a perceived threat or in a moment of road rage.
"

But, earlier in the article you said, "One of the problems with the recent debate was its focus on whether states that have concealed carry laws have seen declining crime rates. Both sides cited studies that showed crimes either declining or increasing in concealed carry states.
"

And, "But there is no uniform scientific method to study crime occurrence, rates and trends. Time frames, databases, definitions and outside variables differ from state to state and from study to study, and the result is a fight among experts without a clear winner."


I've read elsewhere that there is no conclusive evidence showing an increase or decrease in deaths resulting from concealed carry. So, I guess it isn't such a logical deduction.

By the way, I don't own a gun. I've never fired a gun. But I simply can't pass up the opportunity to refute liberal or conservative arguments that lack statistical credibility.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Let's take gun limited laws to the extreme. If legislation was passed prohibiting gun ownership, would your magic number 22 drop to zero? Of course not. A huge percentage of the crimes you cite were caused by illegally owned guns. Legislation will not change the use of those guns.

In fact, even illegally obtained guns were originally legally sold. They don't just magically appear through illegal means.

Furthermore, your claim that the huge percentage of crimes involved illegally owned guns is completely pulled out of your ass.

But why do countries with strong gun laws have a much lower incidence of firearm deaths?

But I simply can't pass up the opportunity to refute liberal or conservative arguments that lack statistical credibility.

Which is why it is ionteresting that you did so with a near-complete lack of statistical or logical credibility.

Here, let me help you out. You have a tell: "Let's take gun limited laws to the extreme. If legislation was passed prohibiting gun ownership". Of course, nobody is actually proposing that, and claiming reductio ad absurdam is, well, absurd the way you approached it.

Anonymous said...

If guns are so bad, why are the cops always carrying them? Do I not deserve the same protection myself, that they seem to require?

We can easily be thrown into the situation where these types of weapons could be required and there won't be any cops around, like being attacked by a pack of 20 wolves while walking in a state park.

First eliminate all the threats that may require these weapons and then, maybe, we can begin to think about not needing them.

PointingOutStatisticalDeception said...

Zombie Rotten McDonald

In fact, even illegally obtained guns were originally legally sold. They don't just magically appear through illegal means.

True. However, if we suppose that legal gun ownership was made illegal, guns would be trafficed into this country just like drugs and other illegal activities.

The District of Columbia has the strictest gun control laws in the country. They ban handguns (most frequently used firearm in violent crimes). Rifles and shotguns must be locked and unloaded. No semi-automatic weapons. DC has the highest death rate by firearm in the country. The rate is 50% higher than Alaska(#2) and Lousiana(#3). Admittedly, Mass and NY have tough laws also and they are amongst the lowest. Not a simple answer.

Furthermore, your claim that the huge percentage of crimes involved illegally owned guns is completely pulled out of your ass.

I'm sorry, you are right. The gang members, drug trafficers, and others incarerated for violent crimes took the time to legally obtain a firearm in order to commit an illegal violent act.

But why do countries with strong gun laws have a much lower incidence of firearm deaths?

I don't know. Why does DC with the strictest gun laws have the worst incidence of violent firearms related crimes whereas NY and Mass. have strict gun laws, but are amongst the lowest.

If you can correlate how stronger gun laws imposed on those that maintain guns responsibly will reduce violent crimes committed by individuals possessing illegal guns, then please elaborate.

Which is why it is interesting that you did so with a near-complete lack of statistical or logical credibility.

I didn't need to. I pointed out that a HUGE percentage of guns in the US are not involved in firearms related deaths: 1 in more than 10,000 guns.

I then went on, using text from James' original post to refute two points he made - stats weren't necessary.

Of course, nobody is actually proposing that, and claiming reductio ad absurdam is, well, absurd the way you approached it.

blah, blah, blah.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

True. However, if we suppose that legal gun ownership was made illegal, guns would be trafficed into this country just like drugs and other illegal activities.

Not quite right. Currently, illegal gun trafficking goes the other way; our massive gun manufacturing infrastructure and ease of access to weaponry is a boon to the drug trade, who ship the guns to Mexico and South America. I kind of think those places would LIKE us to scale back our gun availability.

It's a lovely co-dependency: the drug traffickers buy guns in the US because it is EASY to buy them here and it is harder to get them there, ship them to the drug producers, who use them to produce drugs, because it is EASIER to do so there; then the drugs are shipped up here because the demand and money is here. The proceeds are partly used to buy more guns,rinse and repeat.

The point on that cycle that would be easy to disrupt? The ease of getting guns, also the profitability of the guns and the profitability of the drugs.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

I'm sorry, you are right. The gang members, drug trafficers, and others incarerated for violent crimes took the time to legally obtain a firearm in order to commit an illegal violent act.

James was talking about the likelihood of other shootings also; suicide and accidental. THOSE are quite often not illegally obtained guns.

Also the gun worshipers are overlooking that in the mass shootings that have occassioned these discussions, the guns are pretty much ALWAYS legally obtained.

If guns are so bad, why are the cops always carrying them? Do I not deserve the same protection myself, that they seem to require?

Not if you're not a cop. You see, a cop's JOB is to actually put himself in harm's way to protect the public safety. Your likelihood of being in the same situation? Slim and none. You are buying into the paranoid rantings of the gun lobby.

As Jim points out, however, the likelihood of your gun being used against you: MUCH HIGHER. 22 times higher.

Furthermore, police are required to safely store their weapons, are heavily trained in their use, and go through constant re-certification.

PointingOutStatisticalDeception said...

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't have a gun, never fired a gun, and hope I never have the need to get and use one.

I respect the rights of indivduals to own a firearm. I don't understand the pro-gun lobby's position that semi-automatic weapons with clips that hold a large number of rounds should be legal. When has there ever been a need for such a weapon?

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

The gang members, drug trafficers, and others incarerated for violent crimes took the time to legally obtain a firearm in order to commit an illegal violent act.

the way you elide "violent crime" to "firearm crime" and back to "violent act" is kind of pretty.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

blah, blah, blah.

well, I confess it is hard to argue with logic like that.

[note to self. remember to check for italic tags to make comments more readable] sorry about that.

PointingOutStatisticalDeception said...

James was talking about the likelihood of other shootings also; suicide and accidental. THOSE are quite often not illegally obtained guns.

Okay. I can buy that. If we remove guns from the equation, the accidental deaths go away. That makes sense.

If we remove guns from the suicide equation, suicides do not go away, however.


From wikipedia with citations:

The use of firearms in suicides ranges from less than 10% in Australia[10] to 53.7% in the U.S., where it has been the most common method of suicide.

So, guns are used most often in US suicides.

Japan is noted as having strict gun laws. One source said they practically eliminated murders by firearm. Yet, their strict gun laws do not stop them from having 50% more suicides by gun than the United States.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the National Academy of Science found an association between household firearm ownership and gun suicide rates, though a study by one researcher did not find a statistically significant association between household firearms and gun suicide rates,except in the suicides of children aged 5–14. During the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a strong upward trend in adolescent suicides with a gun, as well as a sharp overall increase in suicides among those age 75 and over.

Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated that while legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide, other methods such as hanging increased. In Australia, the overall rate of suicide continued along an increasing trend, not decreasing until measures specifically aimed to provide support for those intent on suicide were implemented.

Research also indicates no association vis-à-vis safe-storage laws of guns that are owned, and gun suicide rates; and studies that attempt to link gun ownership to likely victimology often fail to account for the presence of guns owned by other people. Researchers have shown that safe-storage laws do not appear to affect gun suicide rates or juvenile accidental gun death.


Unfortunately, when there's a will, they'll find a way.

Reagan's Disciple said...

I like how people who support the 2nd amendment to our own US constitution are now labeled as "Gun worshipers" by zombie.

If people support the 1st amendment do you call them "speech worshipers?"

I thought Obama wanted to tone down the rhetoric?

Anonymous said...

Unlike you, Rayguns, we "libs" as you call us, don't follow our leaders in lock step, including down to the language we use. If Obama wants to tone down the rhetoric,let him. If ZBR labels you a gun worshipper, he's allowed, and furthermore, there's plenty of evidence for it--in YOUR comments. So quit trying to change the subject again. Already.

Reagan's Disciple said...

@anon

If you would attend church you would understand what it means to "worship." Sorry, but I can't help fix your ignorance.

You are right that ZRM can call me what he wants. However, like most issues, that doesn't mean he is correct.

The only thing worshiped in my life is my God.

Everything else is just a hobby.