A 2015 Harvard study analyzing data from the National Crime Victimization Surveys found that self-defense gun use is rare — victims use guns in less than 1 percent of contact crimes.
The characterization that defensive firearm use is "rare" is only in relation to the amount of "contact crimes." What is left unsaid is that there is a lot of "contact crimes" and that even at just 1% that is still on the order of millions of defensive firearms uses every year. Millions.
That same year, there were more than 9,000 criminal homicides involving a gun, compared with just 265 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm...
Note two things here. One, they are only looking at homicides, not non-lethal uses. Most defensive firearms uses do not involve killing the criminal. In fact the vast majority don't involve firing any shots at all. The second very carefully crafted part here is that they restrict their data to private citizens. No-doubt they are discounting any off duty law enforcement uses - while off duty law enforcement are often carrying and users of their firearms for self defense or defense of others. I'll bet you they also discounted uses by anyone who was a private security guard, private personal security, or anyone else they could reasonably (or not) excluded from their "private citizen" label. (eg. maybe even former military) All this to skew their numbers.
Ok, I said one paragraph but I just have to take a shot at one more statement - can't leave this one hanging out there:
In recent years, many states have relaxed their concealed carry laws, on the theory that concealed-gun carriers deter crime. But there is no credible evidence that permissive laws prevent or deter crime...
Really? No credible evidence? There are multiple studies that say exactly the opposite - that increasing private firearms ownership reduces violent crime, while reducing private firearms ownership increases crime. Multiple studies. The fact that they choose to brush these off as not credible is their own willful spin, not reality.
The entire article seems to be put together like this. Very carefully constructed and worded to sound irrefutable and convincing. But it is about 99% pure BS.
The original article doesn’t allow comments. I’m sure that is by design because it was so easy to pick apart.
Also, the Chicago Tribune website is a MESS. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a website with as many ads at the bottom.
Not only that, but she ignores the hard-to-quantify deterrence effect -- thugs who want to commit crimes against persons, but don't because they fear the person might shoot back. The gun is not "used" at all -- it's not even drawn. The mere possibility that it might be there stops the crime from happening.
I agree completely. This isn't "opinion," this is deception.
This woman needs to compare Chicago and Houston.
I can’t get the list to post or I would.
You made the points I was thinking about.
I would venture a guess that most “uses” of firearms to prevent crimes aren’t documented. How many times does a would-be robber or attacker approach someone and then make a sudden, abrupt change in plans and direction when the intended victim either pulls a weapon or even makes a motion towards a possible weapon? I doubt if most of those instances are reported. I think it’s also probable that some potential crimes are stopped just by the potential victim’s situational awareness that makes the criminal decide to look for easier prey.
Another “statistic” I’d like to see is the percentage of the criminal homicides that involved a completely innocent victim vs. the percentage of criminals killing each other. What percentage of criminal homicides involving a gun was gang violence, drug dealers fighting over territory, that sort of thing?