Should guns be used for safety? What do the numbers say?
On the face of it, the idea that guns improve safety seems appealing. If you’ve got a gun in your pocket, the reasoning goes, you are less likely to be robbed, beaten or shot yourself and even killed. Is this a legitimate argument? I’d say it is certainly not a legitimate argument. Guns are not safety devices. As a general rule with few exceptions, having one in your pocket does not increase your safety.
How can that be so? There is no doubt that producing a gun from your pocket can ward off robbers, rapists and other attackers and potential attackers. Some studies based on self-reports indicate that this or something like it happens hundreds of thousands of times a year in the United States. Critics suggest that many of these cases involve instances of two people arguing and both going to get their guns, or a case of someone hearing a noise and fetching a firearm without ever perceiving an actual imminent threat or hearing additional noises. These are arguably not very convincing instances of guns being used as safety devices, but we’ll leave that alone for the moment.
Let’s accept that having a gun can, in certain circumstances, including when you are being attacked, improve your safety. However, what about the rest of the time? Do guns improve safety?
To answer this question, I looked first at the number of people killed in justifiable homicides by gun-toting citizens. This means the person killed was in the act of committing a felony, and the person doing the killing used a firearm and was not a law enforcement officer. There were an average of 212 cases of this kind of justifiable homicide in the United States from 2006 through 2010, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I looked at deaths, instead of injuries or instances of a criminal being frightened off by a gun-waving citizen, first because killing someone is a very serious event and also because deaths are closely tracked. As a rule, no one dies without it being noticed and investigated. Homicides are commonly used by criminologists to track overall violent crime rates.
Next, I looked at the number of people who are killed in accidental shootings. In 2012 this number, according to the Centers for Disease Control, was 591. You see where I’m heading with this? There are nearly three times as many (2.78 times as many, to be precise) people killed accidentally by guns as there are intentionally killed by citizens in justifiable homicides.
We are told that a gun is a device that improves safety by providing people who carry one with the ability to kill anyone they perceive as a threat. However, when we look at the best available data, it turns out that a gun is more likely to accidentally kill someone than to intentionally kill someone in a justifiable homicide. So how can a gun be a safety device?
One answer is that in certain circumstances, it is. If you are an illegal drug dealer, mob enforcer, police officer, undercover agent, armored car guard or live or work in an area where violent crime is truly rampant, a gun could conceivably improve your safety. Those are very small populations, however. For the rest of us, a gun is a danger device, not a safety device.
I own guns for hunting, but I do not consider them safety devices or have any plan for using them for home defense or some similar use. I keep the guns unloaded at one end of the house and the ammunition at the other. When I have a gun in my hand or in my car, I feel less safe, not more. That’s because I live in the real world, not a world of fantasy.
This is not a perfect analysis. The CDC does not track justifiable firearms homicides by civilians. The FBI does not track accidental shootings. So it’s not possible, as far as I can tell, to compare data from the same source or survey in order to find out whether more people die from justifiable homicide or accidental shootings. That would be the best way to do it, because the FBI and CDC are using different methods of data-gathering and analysis, and it’s possible that those different methods explain some or all of the difference in the number of accidental firearm deaths and justifiable firearm homicides. However, we don’t have better data. And this data is not that bad. These are the places you go to get information on these topics. And their message is clear.
The evidence pretty clearly shows that guns are not safety devices. Seat belts are safety devices. They save thousands of lives per year and take very few. Guns are devices intended for shooting, wounding and killing. Incidentally, in some instances they may improve safety. However, as a rule, they do not. If you carry a gun and that gun is used to kill someone, all things being equal, the odds that the person killed will be someone you don’t want killed — like yourself, your child, a friend or other innocent person — are about three times higher than the chances you’ll use it to kill someone who you perceive as a threat.
Originally published at the blog Things Everybody Knows.
Photo: Rob Waddington/Flickr
I don’t agree that guns reduce safety. I think there are many cases of people using their guns against what those should be used, that’s it. There are no way why someone who’s using firearms to protect their home and family to be penalized because some random Joe can’t use this tool properly.
Let me suggest you do some research into these topics using unbiased, objective sources. For instance, the Reno quote is widely considered a fabrication. Of course, it is difficult to show someone never said something. But it should be possible to show that they did say something. And there is no evidence for this quote.
“Registration is just a step. Waiting periods are just a step. The goal is the elimination of privately held firearms.”-Janet Reno.
Did you check out the JPFO site I mentioned earlier? They can show exactly why citizens should be on equal footing with police or Federal Agents. Police are supposed to “serve and protect” while the military fights fights foreign enemies. If you militarize the police, then civilians become the enemy. Ask any Jew who has survived the Holocaust. Look at Ruby Ridge, Waco or Kent State where unarmed students were shot by National Guard Troops. Or after the Boston Marathon bombing, SWAT teams were going door to door and pulling people out of their homes with no warrants. Was any… Read more »
I am not entirely clear on why it is essential or even desirable for police and citizens to be on equal footing. Nor do I grasp how restricting police to six-shooters and five-round pump shotguns would accomplish this. What are you talking about? What is the big deal about how the cops look? What matters is what they do. I have no interest in restricting police from carrying military surplus weapons or wearing body armor unless and until we can show that this is having some seriously negative effect, such as increasing numbers of citizens gunned down by cops. Does… Read more »
The fact remains that the only way to be on an equal footing with someone else is if both people are armed or neither one is. I just want the same rules to apply equally to everyone. I e-mailed Lt Col Bateman and asked about police and Federal Agents being restricted to six shot revolvers and five round pump shotguns. Never got a reply. While we are at it, how about losing the body armor, Nazi helmets and facemasks as well? It might encourage them to behave better. As you said, if guns are not safety devices, why else would… Read more »
If your premise that guns are not safety devices is correct, that means that the cop you may encounter is not carrying a weapon for your safety, but because they see you as a potential threat. It also means they can impose their will on you whenever they like. I have suggested that police be prohibited from entering any building that has a NO GUNS sign outside unless they leave them in their vehicles. As far as my other concerns, look at your typical SWAT cop or Federal Agent: black fatigues, Nazi helmets, German made automatic weapons. The only thing… Read more »
Wes, I believe it’s been you who have posted various times, information regarding law enforcement in general being of concern. I agree with you. But often times these articles gloss over what should be of great concern.
I wish one of the wondrous writers at GMP would take this conversation a step further.
I’m less concerned with what the police look like than what they do. Whether they dress like Bozo the Clown or Darth Vader, they’re not killing any more civilians (in the U.S. at least) than they did several years ago. I recommend you worry less about scary images and more about the evidence. It shows there is no trend toward police, whether armed with machine guns or billy clubs, killing more people these days. It also shows cops kill nearly 10 times as many civilians as civilians kill cops, and that many of the civilians are unarmed, while virtually none… Read more »
“Not for serious real-world discussions of public policy.” The militarization of police forces is a very real fact that has been encouraged by the government donating surplus weapons and vehicles to police departments. This encourages a mindset to use them whether it is appropriate or not. Lt Colonel Robert Bateman is an Army officer who has said civilians should be disarmed except for muskets, double barrel shotguns and five round bolt action rifles. He believes only police or military can safely use weapons, despite three separate shootings on military bases. It is the same elitist mindset that antigun politicians with… Read more »
This was my post, but for some reason was labeled “Anonymous”.
How about we look at the evidence and see if there is any trend of increasing numbers of police shootings? Here’s what the FBI says: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14 I don’t see any trend of increasing homicides of civilians by law enforcement. There seem to be more people getting shot to death by police using rifles as well as “firearms, type not stated” which could indicate that police are using military to kill people more often than in the past. However, the overall number of citizens killed by cops using guns doesn’t appear to be on the increase. To me, this doesn’t suggest… Read more »
I live in a heavily armed rural area and you would be crazy to try and rob someone here or break into their house. Comparing accidental gun deaths to justifiable killings doesn’t seem like a good way to gauge guns’ effects on society.
Gwinnett woman, 73, chases burglar suspect from home with gunshots. http://www.ajc.com/news/news/gwinnett-woman-73-chases-burglar-suspect-from-home/ng6y3/
Then there’s: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/9-year-old-girl-accidentally-shoots-dead-gun-instructor-uzi-police-article-1.1917858 This exchange of informally collected anecdotes chosen to select a viewpoint shows why it’s important to have and use information produced by the scientific method, which involves open-mindedness, systematic data collection, sophisticated analysis and review by peers. The information produced by that method shows that guns are far more likely to kill accidentally than to justifiably kill intentionally. All the theories and common sense and intuition and rationalizations and other navel-gazing has to go out the window when it conflicts with the data. And the theory that guns are safety devices is in that category. According to… Read more »
I’ve said this many times before. I work with adolescents that are court mandated into our treatment center. I’ve asked many of the guys through the years this question. If you”thought” that the person you were about to rob had a gun, would you go ahead with the assault? The overwhelming majority said no. Just the mere thought that the victim may have a gun, was enough reason no to try anything.
“Chicago robberies drop 20% after concealed carry permits are issued”
“Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.”
From someone who lives in a (somewhat) civilized western country (Read: Not America), everyone else in the world looks upon your gun culture with disdain. Look at any metric, statistic, or rationalized argument you want; the facts remain the same: Guns kill, and remove the onus of empathy from the person doing the killing. How many mass shootings in the US this past decade? How many anywhere else? The difficulty in your part of the world, it seems, is the indoctrination that the US constitution says you should, therefore you should. Taking into account the historical context for that document,… Read more »
I’m curious: do the police in your “civilized” country not have automatic weapons and military hardware that could be used against civilians? You might want to look up Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership at http://www.jpfo.org since they know better than most what happens to people when they are disarmed by “civilized” government.
Wes, you mean like this? “Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are Banned”
“The Harvard study ……Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.
A gun may not a safety device for this fellow because he is not comfortable with the weapon or well trained. A responsible well trained carrier is not even a fraction of the accidental death by gun statistic. You can tell that the author of this article is afraid of guns or not comfortable with them so in turn is trying to sway others opinions. Guns are safety devices if carried by the right person.
You’re trying to sway others’ opinions with pure conjecture. How about some evidence? Lets see your statistics about how many “well trained carriers” accidentally kill themselves or others with guns. What do you have?
There is a condition called hoplophobia, or fear of an object. Perhaps you are speaking from this without even realizing it. I noticed you didn’t address my point about shootings by police. Why was that?
Police shootings is a different discussion that seems to have little in common with this one. However, since you bring it up you may be interested to know that the ratio of police homicides of civilians during arrest to civilian homicides of police is nearly 10 to 1. That suggests that the police are holding their own, and then some. It almost looks like citizens are in greater danger from the police than vice versa. Beyond any doubt, a police officer is the one kind of person you will commonly encounter that you know for sure has a gun. And… Read more »
I never said for a fact that you had hoplophobia, just asked if it was a possibility. What are your feelings about Tasers? 9-11 could have been a very different day if the crew and passengers on those planes had been allowed to carry them. As far as cops, the line between police and military is getting thinner and thinner each day. Soon there may be no difference between the two. They are becoming what the Redcoats were over 200 years ago: an occupying army that sees “civilians” as the enemy.
I doubt you can read the future any better than you can diagnose hoplophobia. I do think the police could stand to be reined in, but the idea that the police are on the verge of becoming an occupying army, or anything like it, is probably something for your screenplay, not for serious real-world discussions of public policy.
From The Economist: Latest Deaths From Police Shootings
Japan 0
Britain 0
Germany 8
America 409
If you want safety, take automatic weapons away from cops and Federal Agents.
The point is that there is all around less crime because the criminals (in a highly armed area) does not know who is armed and who is not. If someone thinks there is a reasonable chance that the person they are about to rape/steal from/intimidate/etc may be armed, they are going to have second thoughts (on margin), thus the crime never happens in the first place.
As we see here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/
That is, indeed, the theory as put forth by advocates of concealed carry. However, as I pointed out, the actual evidence from the real world is that guns kill nearly three times as many people accidentally as they do justifiably. That’s where the theory runs into a problem. Fire extinguishers, seat belts, smoke alarms and air bags are safety devices. Guns are, except in the rare instances I’ve noted, not.
But what you miss: In only counting “Homicides” you miss non-fatal self defense shootings, as well as incidents where the mere presence of the firearm in the hands of somebody willing to use it stops the crime.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/
This particular incident would not have made your cherry picked statistics – it was non-fatal.
http://www.guns.com/2014/05/24/armed-homeowner-fends-off-five-masked-intruders/
Or this one – no shots even fired.
Nah, Chris. I’ve had this conversation before and I’m not missing anything. I didn’t look at woundings because, 1) there’s no reason to think the ratio of accidental woundings to justifiable woundings would be any different.and 2) deaths are a better barometer because, while not all woundings may be reported or counted as firearms incidents, all deaths are counted and investigated and a cause assigned. That’s why deaths are commonly used for all kinds of health and crime measures. As far as not having to shoot somebody to scare them off, in those cases you don’t need a gun. A… Read more »