Why Gun Statistics Are Dishonest And A Distraction From The Real Issue

15
934

Gun ownership is a fundamental right in America because it is the right to self-protection and to prevent oppression from an overbearing government (which, really, goes back to the right to self-protection). But, anti-gunners, including (maybe especially) many politicians, want you to believe that gun ownership is essentially about the idea of intentionally injuring or killing people, so they trot out gun statistics and whine and gnash their teeth about how many lives were lost due to guns.

But they are being dishonest.

What do I mean? Let’s define dishonesty first, and, then, I’ll explain. Definitions of the word “dishonest” include “not worthy of trust or belief” and “fraudulent.” And why do I call gun statistics that are typically cited as dishonest? I’ll let Dean Weingarten give perspective on this:

The [statistics] shows that firearms ownership is not related to firearm homicides. That is somewhat misleading. The trick is to only look at firearm homicides. What matters is not firearm homicides, but total homicides. Firearms availability could either increase or decrease total homicides.

I ran the data from the Guardian through a standard statistical calculator to see if there was any correlation between firearm ownership and total homicides.  There was a small negative correlation.

Weingarten also writes,

If there is a relationship, a higher legal firearms ownership rate means slightly less crime.

This does not mean that firearms are not useful. More likely, it means that people with firearms are less likely to be victims, and people without firearms are more likely to be victims. There is a long historical record of people with weapons that successfully defend themselves. There is a corresponding long history of people without weapons being victimized.

So, really the question comes down to not whether there will be more or less crime if firearms are outlawed; the question is who will be victimized. Gun ownership does appear to decrease crime, but, more specifically, gun ownership determines who are the victims. If you own a gun (and are trained in how to use it), you are statistically less likely to be the victim.

So, realizing (unlike anti-gunners) that not having guns isn’t going to decrease crime rates, you need to ask yourself (and maybe ask your anti-gunner friends and family) who they want the victims of crime to be: them or other people who are unwilling to defend themselves or defend their families?

As for me, I can’t protect everyone, but I can do a lot to protect my family, and, so, that’s what I have to choose. Since you’re reading this, I’ll bet you feel the same way.

15 COMMENTS

  1. I do not trust polls or statistics. I once had a congressional aid tell me they can make polls and statistics work in their favor just by using particular demographics or using generalizations. Such as the reason the aid told me this was I was angry because the Dems were quoting handgun murders at a higher level than they really were. Well even defensive shooting are listed as murder until a D.A. or Judge rules the shooting justified. So when they quoted the murder rate they were including all justifiable Police and Civilian shootings. So when Libertards start quoting polls and statistics I don’t believe them.

  2. The ONLY “issue” here is the continued push BY THE “progressive” COMMUNISTS infesting our “government” to attempt disarm law-abiding gun owners so they can be easily CONTROLLED. A law-abiding armed population cannot (and I might add…WILL NOT) be easily manipulated and controlled by a crop of tyrannical “government”. “ELITES” Hence, we have the second amendment that is the MAIN “target” of said “progressives” (communists).
    (And I BELIEVE, the ONLY one that WILL protect all the other amendments from the tyrannical SCUM in D.C.)

  3. One thing that it seems every single article and politician ignores is the ratio of legally owned guns in this country to the number of people killed (or even the number of crimes committed using those legally owned guns) by legally owned guns. When looking at this ratio, one finds that gun related crime is not a huge problem at all.

  4. I am 80 years old. I have had and been around firearms since I was ten years old. I do not disclose what I have as firearms or not have as it is no one’s business. None of the weapons I have or had have ever killed or injured anyone. That is due to my mental state and knowledge of what a firearm can do. I am a normal human being.

    The problems exist when someone misbehaves with a firearm, using it to harm someone else. I am sure we all know that. The bottom line is not the firearm but what a human chooses to do with one. I think we all really know that. But we have people who are not mentally stable and abuse their use of a firearm. That is just common sense. so, we have as people problem, not a firearms problem. But we also have a very huge lack of knowledge of the human mind and how it can misbehave. We are making some progress but professionals have told me we are not there yet. So, what choice do we have? arming ourselves is the surest way to defend ourselves but it is far from foolproof. The bad guy with a gun always has the edge when it comes to shooting at others. Therefore, our framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights provided us a means of protection. Destroying that process only undoes our ability to protect ourselves. That does not make us very wise.

  5. I was just reading that between January 1, 2016, and June 15, 2016, there were more than 501,000 babies aborted. There were only about 5,000 people killed by guns for the same period.
    To me, killing over 501,000 babies is what they should be screaming about.

  6. the nra is getting on a slippery slope wanting to get regs on bump stocks you give anything to a liberal and they think you are weak and go after more and more

  7. Any time politicians wants to take something away from you “for your protection” or to make things “safer,” you must ask how that helps in your protection and also, “making it safer for who?”
    So if you stop and think, “I am being disarmed for my protection(?)”, you’ll realize how ridiculous these politicians demands really are.
    And by that same measure, who is safer when you’re law-abiding citizens are no longer armed? Criminals are certainly safer. Politicians trying to take away your rights or certainly safer. But how, on God’s green earth, can an individual be safer by being unable to defend himself and his family?

  8. It’s a cruel and dangerous world we try to survive and live in. How many people are killed by drunk drivers every day let alone in a one year time period. I guess we should try to ban all alcohol and cars. Anyone can go into a Targets, Walmart, etc. walk down the isle with knives, open one and do severe damage to anyone in the store without making a sound. Bottom line, if you don’t like something, don’t buy it. However, don’t forbid a law biding citizen the RIGHT to own firearms. Law enforcement can’t and will not be able to be at every place at every second of each day. Presidents get protection for themselves and their families even after their term is up; who does that for the citizens of this country? All lives matter. Criminals will always find a way to buy what they want. The only way to protect the public is to arm the public. With proper training of course. Let’s get back on track about the reality of these unfortunate gun crimes. They are people with mental problems or criminals. Normal law biding citizens don’t kill people. We have the right to protect ourselves and our families if need be. God forbid I’m ever in that situation, if I live through it I’ll be thankful I’m still around. Most people are either hunters or enjoy going to an indoor or outdoor range and do sport shooting. I’ve been shooting since I was about 12 or 13. I was trained properly, took safety classes and always respected and treated all firearms with respect. Thank God for the 2nd amendment.

  9. The gun haters believe, that a gunfree society is a save society. They can write all the anti-gun laws they want. The criminals will always have them. That is why they are called “criminals”. Background checksare useless because the criminal is not going to subject himself or herself to one. Besides, their final goal is gun confiscation and complete control over every aspect of peoples lives. Besides, there is no better way to control the populace than through gun control and health care. And that is what the progressives are after.BTW, Hillery is a progressive democrat.

  10. I agree with the author plus the second amendment also underwrites the entire constitution. I believe that without the second amendment, there could not be a defensible constitution.

  11. I agree 100% with Jerry Branson, I am 76 and have a number of guns and carry all the time.
    I do this to protect My wife & I and those We love. None of my guns have killed anyone and hope
    I never have to, However if the need arrives I will use it to the best of my ability to protect those I care about.

  12. The NRA needs to be told in no uncertain terms it will cost them if they give an inch to these parasites and should not have answered so hastily as they did.
    This is a sign of their true backbone.

    Yes the “bumpfire” is a joke for knownothings but you cannot give any more to the Commies – that will be blood in the water.
    Other 2nd-Amendmend orgs are far more useful in actualfights that get things done.
    The NRA has been mainly a PR firm and not that great til the statement saying-

    “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a ……gun is a good guy with a gun.”

    They should stick with that for redemption.

    The-
    “SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION”
    is the fighter in court winning both the big DC and Chicago cases – check them out and there other good orgs l too…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here