Does Gun Training Cause People to be less Violent?

Gun Watch ^ | 6 January, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In the debate over the right to keep and bear arms and the secondary question of the utility of being armed, some social scientists have attempted to show that the presence of guns makes people more aggressive.  This claimed "weapons effect" has been discredited.  The best summation of the failure to show such an effect, in my opinion, was this article published in The Volokh Conspiracy in 2011.  Here is a small excerpt:

Thus, EMA v. Brown rejects the “violent video game effect” studies for failing to demonstrate a compelling state interest. Indeed, EMA suggests that the studies do not even rise to the level of a trivial state interest. Quite significantly, for Second Amendment purposes, the very similar “weapons effect” hypothesis likewise is presented as something which is equally non-compelling, and no more than trivial. 

The studies on video games have led, at worst, to some minors being unconstitutionally deprived of video games. In contrast, the “weapons effect” has become an article of faith among many anti-gun advocates, who are convinced that guns turn peaceable people into dangerous aggressors. Many anti-gun laws have been enacted in part because of this wrongful idea, and some of those laws have deprived the victims of violent crimes from having the means of effective self-defense. Indeed, continuing belief in the non-existent weapons effect is a major reason why nine states still deny law-abiding trained adults the constitutional right to carry licensed firearms for lawful protection in public places.

While it is clear that a "weapons effect" that makes people *more* aggressive has not been found, no one seems to be looking at the fairly obvious alternative hypothesis, that making a decision to legally carry a deadly weapon is highly correlated with being *less* aggressive.

While I am a mild mannered person, I know that being armed has made me acutely aware of the potential for conflict, and has lead me to avoid unnecessary potential conflicts.   All concealed carry instructors that I know, or have even read, advise students that the best way to win a fight is to avoid the conflict in the first place.  Far from precipitating conflict, those who legally carry weapons go to considerable lengths to avoid conflict.

The evidence shows that people who obtain concealed carry permits are far more law abiding than the general population.   They are much less likely to be arrested than the general population, and far less likely to commit felonies, including murders.   We are not talking about small differences; people with concealed carry permits are many times more law abiding than the general population.

In my experience, over the 15 years that I taught concealed carry courses, the students were exceptionally polite, self controlled, helpful, and responsible individuals, far above the norm of the community.

This could either be the result of self selection, where only self controlled, polite individuals tend to apply for concealed carry permits; it could be that the presence of firearms tends to bring out the best behavior in most people; or it could be a combination of the above.   I suspect a combination of the above is the correct answer.   I have noticed the same for people who openly carry firearms, but the sample is smaller, and no one collects this statistical information.

It is worthwhile to note that in all the open carry demonstrations around the country, I have not read of a single negligent discharge of an openly carried firearm.

It has been an article of faith in the gun culture that training in firearms teaches responsibility.   Centuries of tradition hold that when children are trained in the use of arms, they become more responsible, not less.   Thomas Jefferson recommended that a young relative, Peter Carr, take up the gun for exercise, rather than ball games:

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Peter Carr was about 15 at the time.   It is worth noting that Jefferson assumes that Carr has a gun.   Carr lived with Jefferson at Monticello before the letter was written.

Jefferson's letter is hardly definitive, but it shows an example of giving responsibility to young people to promote responsibility.

My own daughter was encouraged to carry a holstered Glock about Yuma when she was 16.   She later said that she felt it was a turning point in her life;  she was now being treated, and had to act, as an adult.

Responsibility is learned, much like other habits.  I am not surprised when people who are taught responsibility act responsibly.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

People can be taught to be responsible, especially when young.

[Veggie Todd]

That was me, about 40 years ago.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I hunted and competed in matches for most of my life. Of all the hundreds of shooters I have known none have been prone to reckless behavior or violence.

[Nervous Tick]

Everything he said, plus:

anyone who has shot an animal (varmint, game) and seen it die by their hand has respect for what a firearm can actually do to a living thing, and what a living thing looks like as, and after, its life is taken.

Except to the most hardened cold-blooded types (a tiny minority, I think), this dose of reality adds to the sense of responsibility.

Just my 2c

[snoringbear]

“People can be taught to be responsible, especially when young. “

Well, the more training in marksmanship and situational self defense the more confidence one has and thereby will make the right decisions at the right time. There’s no such thing as over training, a must do to attain what the experts refer to a muscle memory.

[trebb]

While I am a mild mannered person, I know that being armed has made me acutely aware of the potential for conflict, and has lead me to avoid unnecessary potential conflicts. All concealed carry instructors that I know, or have even read, advise students that the best way to win a fight is to avoid the conflict in the first place. Far from precipitating conflict, those who legally carry weapons go to considerable lengths to avoid conflict.

Exactly - I am always more polite when armed because I do not want to be part of the problem escalating to a place it needn't go. I do not bristle when "dissed" and tend to keep a much tighter rein on my emotions when armed.

[ThunderSleeps]

Same here. I’m generally an easy going guy. I’ve noticed that when I’m CCing I tend to be even more polite. I think subconsciously I’m trying to project a better image for members of the firearms community. I know it is silly, I’m carrying concealed, who knows? Well, at times the flannel shirt and NRA hat might be a tip off, or the 5.11 tac vest to those who recognize it.

[Fred Hayek]

Let’s not let facts get in the way of the narrative /s.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

There are two “gun attitudes”, one good and one bad, that need to be understood as part of “gun culture”, the learning about and understanding of the proper use of guns and their purpose, as well as their limitations.

It is indeed easy for a novice, untrained and unpracticed gun owner to adopt the bad “gun attitude”. That is, the false assumption that guns automatically give power, authority, control, domination and respect. A great, visible manifestation of this is the gang-banger who fires a pistol sideways. Another cue is that they display and brandish whenever possible, to “assert their authority”.

When an experienced gun user meets someone with a bad gun attitude, they get steely eyed, because they know that first and foremost, someone like that is *unsafe*, and is much more likely to have an accident because of their “gun play”. They are like “an idiot with a chainsaw”, and are a threat to themselves and everyone around them, whether there is need to use a gun or not, or they want to be or not.

I don’t suppose it should be any surprise that journalists and others with no experience with guns should think that most gun owners are like this, because at least at first, this is how the journalists imaging *they* would behave if they had a gun.

The contrast with a gun owner with a good “gun attitude” could not be starker. Be they open carry or concealed carry, or even holding their gun in a way to not be confused with brandishing, for some purpose, they are readily identifiable as “someone who knows what they are doing.” They strive to be safe and go to lengths to let others know by their actions that they are safe, and safely controlling their firearms.

At the same time, they are not attracted to gratuitous violence, because they have no need to be. They are unconcerned if ordinary people know they are armed, and even prefer that hostile people don’t know they are armed.

As such, they exude confidence that just by itself dissuades others from wanting to violently engage them. And last but not least, if they do need to brandish or use their gun, they will do so without braggadocio, mess or fuss. Zero need to wave it around to show how mighty and powerful they are and that everyone must do what they say.

And they will likely hit their target(s) as many times as they want to. Unlike gang-bangers and other inexperienced people with bad gun attitudes.