More Guns Means More "Gun Deaths"

I saw that someone posted this little bit of relatively useless information on facebook. Now, naturally, many folks will interpret this to mean that anyone having a gun is likely to use it to kill someone else. But, let's look a little deeper into this bit of folk 'wisdom'.

Firstly, I would note that if in fact there are more 'gun deaths' and also an increase in the number of guns, it is logical that an increasing number of people killed by the gun were shot by a legal gun owner defending his or her life and or property. That is a good thing.

It is also logical to think that many of the possessors of "more guns" are bad guys, criminals and crooks who are busy doing each other in. This is also a good thing.

A good argument can also be made that with an increase in the number of citizens owning and legally carrying guns for self defense, the number of citizen (read: good people) deaths have decreased since criminals are less likely to rob, assault and try to kill someone whom they suspect is armed. This fits nicely with the notion that the bad guys are doing themselves in more frequently.

On the other side, let's say that there were far fewer guns, that citizens were prohibited from owning or carrying guns. Then, I'd agree that the number of "gun deaths" might decrease overall, but would definitely increase for the poor, defenseless public.

Making bald, unsupported and ambiguous statements like "more guns equal more gun deaths" is like saying "more cars equal more car deaths". Maybe, but getting to what that really means, if it is true at all, requires honesty, research and an unbiased desire to get at the truth.


Like Mark Twain said, there are "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics".

Here are a few facts, not biased in one way or the other, just facts that can be checked for accuracy. From "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12.

A note about the research by Agresti and Smith:

This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility.

See the link below for the source of the facts to follow and to see more for yourself:
 http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp:


In 2011 the US had a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000. Chicago alone (known for their strict gun laws, even banning handguns) had a murder rate of 15.9. The last time our murder rate was below 4.7 was in 1963. State of Vermont allows anybody who can legally own a firearm to be able to carry it without a permit. Their murder rate is .4 per 100,000

According toBureau of Justice Statistics numbers, each year between 1987 and 1992 about 62,200 victims of violent crimes used guns to defend themselves, while another 20,000 annually used guns to protect property. According to the National Self-Defense Survey conducted by criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University in 1993, Americans used guns 2.3 million times a year to defend themselves between 1988 and 1993.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

Ignorance - for people who carry concealed, it can be tragic

People who like guns and have a concealed carry permit most often focus on guns, caliber, holsters, concealment and other every day topics that keep us entertained and up to date. However, today, I saw and responded to a disturbing thread on a gun forum that dealt with none of these things.

The poster related an incident that could happen to anyone, but his attitude toward it and his responsibility as a gun owner - it's not a situation that is confined to concealed carry - was ill informed, based more on folklore than fact, and perhaps too common. In brief, the situation was this, and I'm paraphrasing and leaving out any identifying details.

The gun owner and his friends were sitting on his property enjoying their conversation when an adult male, riding a bicycle appeared and began riding around on the gun owner's property, and making stupid remarks. The bicycle guy was asked to leave repeatedly and finally rode off uttering generally threatening remarks and bad language. Then the bicycle guy returned. The gun owner sent his guests into the house and confronted Mr Bicycle Man, who at one point moved his hand toward his hoodie pocket at which time the gun owner drew his pistol so the bicycle man could see it, but didn't point it at him. Bicycle man rode away, mouthing threats.

Well, there are probably a few things the gun owner did wrong, or on the edge of wrong, but the most disturbing thing was the follow up posts. These were from the gun owner and a few other forum members, the essence of which is that the gun owner stated that he was within his legal rights to shoot someone who is trespassing on his property and refuses to "follow orders" to leave.

This is undoubtedly wrong, regardless of the state in which Mr. Gun Owner resides. It is wrong, both legally and ethically. I certainly am not familiar with every state statute on defensive shooting, but I will say that I believe there is a requirement on the part of the shooter to know, without a reasonable doubt, that he, or some innocent person at the scene, is threatened with severe bodily harm or death and the person threatening this has demonstrated the means to do so.

Carrying or having access to a firearm should make one more responsible and less willing to engage in confrontations for that very reason. If I have a legally sanctioned carry gun and some bozo wants to argue, insult and question my manhood, well, fine. I don't have to bite. I know that I have the means to defend myself if I am significantly threatened and frankly, I don't really care what other people on the scene may think. I know I am armed. The others don't. And I intend to keep it that way.

So, once again, people who have guns, especially those who carry legally, have a serious and constant burden to know the law and to know when deadly force, or the threat of it, is appropriate, legally and morally.

The scenario I proposed to Mr. Gun Owner who posted on the forum was this: suppose a twenty-something male, dirty, oddly dressed and mostly incoherent appeared on his property. Mr. Gun Owner argues with the man and orders him to leave his property. The man doesn't comply but continues to wander around raving incoherently, maybe walking toward the Gun Owner's house. The Gun Owner decides the other guy is freaking him out, doesn't know what he might do and besides, has not followed orders to leave the property, so he shoots the raving man. Afterward, Mr. Gun Owner is informed by the police that the raving man was an honorably discharged veteran who was undergoing treatment for PTSD, tended to get confused and babble when off his meds and had wandered away from home where he was being cared for by his elderly parents and was confused and looking for help.

The responsible gun owner cannot resort to deadly force unless there is no other viable alternative present at the time. Period.

I'm not a lawyer, or am I offering this as legal advice. I'm saying, know your legal and moral requirements if you carry or own a gun. From what I have seen on various gun forums, many people do not.

Lasermax Update!

I can begin this post with the assurance that Murphy is alive and well. As you probably know, Murphy's Law states that if anything possibly can go wrong, it will.

After moderating many pro and con laser sight discussions on the old Elsie Pea Forum, and being pretty much on the fence myself, I concocted the idea that if I could get samples of the different, popular laser sights for a handgun, I could evaluate them, test out their usefulness for me and report on what I found. I got a Crimson Trace laserguard pretty quickly. The Laserlyte people promised a sample, but then didn't come through or respond to my subsequent emails. The Lasermax folks were cooperative and got me to the right person to set this up. Then, things fell between the cracks.

After a few emails, I discovered that the original person handling these situations was no longer with the company, and her replacement made contact with me. She liked the idea and we began to discuss how the evaluation and review would be handled. Then more delays. I was getting frustrated with the lack of progress and posted about this here. Then, I re-established contact and we both discovered that Murphy had been at work.

The order meant to send the evaluation items to me had entered their provisioning system, then got canceled. No one knows why as yet, but they are checking into it. They obviously don't want that happening in their ordering and provisioning systems. Then, my contact in Public Relations discovered that my later emails were being directed into her junk mail folder. I wasn't the only one, it turned out. Other important contacts' emails were also being mistakenly routed to the junk mail folder. Strangely, this exact thing had happened to me on a day before. Sometimes, software is too smart for its own good.

Anyway, I think we are back on track. As I see it, this was one of those things that sometimes happens in business, and life, where a few things get off track due really to no one's fault. I should have some review items from Lasermax soon, and I can get my comparison study underweigh.

I want to thank Lasermax for being responsive and tracking down the issues that we experienced. I think one big lesson in all this is to work with other parties to resolve issues instead of jumping to conclusions and slamming people or companies without justification. It resolves around assumptions. Almost every time I've made an assumption about an issue and acted on it, without asking questions and trying to understand all of the facts and circumstances involved, I've made a mistake.

So, a big thank you to Lasermax for hanging on to good customer service like a dog on a bone. It's good to find a company that understands their customers are what keeps them in business.

A Few Facts About Carrying a Gun for Self Defense

There is a source available on the internet for facts concerning many important topics and issues. Gun Control is one of these. The source is Just Facts. This is a valuable and important source for all gun owners and self-defense carry people to know about and be familiar with because, in the current gun debate, facts are the best tools you can have.

What distinguishes this resource from many other internet "fact sources" is the site's care to be unbiased and to avoid skewed and inaccurate data.

In JustFacts introductory note they say:

"This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts'Standards of Credibility."

Justfacts.com is one research source I can rely upon to provide fact-based information from which I can draw my own conclusions. To that end, I present some interesting facts gleaned from their site relevant to those who carry for self defense, and also to those who oppose self-defense carry out of ignorance, or because they don't understand the, well... facts.

Number of gun owners in the US

According to private firearms manufacturers data in 2010, there are between 40 and 45 million adults who own handguns.

A 2005 Gallup poll indicates there are 100 million adults who own guns of different types. In the same poll, 67% said they owned guns for self protection.

Why is having a gun for self protection necessary?

Some facts (from the Justfacts.com website. See the site for additional references and support for the information listed below.):

1. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard." 
2. Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
3. Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
4. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
5. A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
6. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

The last, number 6, should be especially relevant to those who support self-defense carry.

Those are some facts pertaining to the usefulness of a gun in preventing violent crime. How vulnerable are we? Consider this:

 At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.

A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once

A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."

Justfacts goes on to show interesting charts describing the effects of various anti-handgun legislation passed in different locations. You can see these yourself on their site, but the summary is that where anti-handgun legislation is passed that inhibits the citizens from owning and carrying a gun for self protection, the incident of violent crime increases. When those restrictions are struck down, not surprisingly, the incidents of violent crime perpetrated against citizens goes down. Not a big surprise to most of us.

Why this information is important.

In the continuing national debate over gun control, which I think should be about violence control, it is important to have a good grasp of the facts. Every time I have argued this issue with someone opposed to guns, I have found that they do not know the basic facts about guns and self protection. They are working from rhetoric, falsehoods and, in many cases, just plain fear of guns. 

My response is usually to point out that it is a free country, that they don't have to own or carry a gun, but in fact, they depend upon someone for their protection who does carry a gun when thing go bad. As they frequently do, facts tell us. And, given this, all law-abiding citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms in self defense in order to assist us in our constitutional rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, conversely, no one has the right to prevent me from exercising those freedoms.

When the criminals and crazies can no longer have guns, or knives, or baseball bats, or screwdrivers, cars, explosives, ice picks, poisons or any other implement that can be turned into a deadly weapon, I might consider giving up my guns.

Not likely....