AFF's Doublethink

Freddie — March 9, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Look– if this is your argument, you have to acknowledge the fact that the number of people who accidentally kill or injure someone with a handgun, kill themselves with a handgun, or kill a family member with a handgun absolutely dwarfs the number of people who successfully defend themselves with a handgun. It isn’t even close. And it’s been that way, consistently, since we started tracking the statistics. So when you say “I’m sure the residents of that neighborhood would be safer if handguns were outlawed, ammiright?,” the answer is yes! Yes, they would be safer. I’m sorry that doesn’t fit your narrative, but all the statistical evidence that we have, all of it, disputes your vision on how these things work. The reason is that most people aren’t actually Obi Wan Rambo, waiting to mete out a little justice. Most people have a hard time working an ATM or opening a Swiss Army knife without cutting themselves.

Now here’s the kicker: I’m actually generally quite libertarian when it comes to gun control. As a general principle, I’m just very hesitant to ban something because some people misuse it. Similar argument to drugs. And I’m conflicted about the Heller case. But people who argue about guns have to get real. The argument against handgun bans has to take place on the realm of principle, and not based on charming fantasies about the capacity of most people to defend themselves with a gun, or the odds that they ever will. This is a similar problem to how Megan McArdle argues about guns; she sets up these simplistic narratives where everyone is secretly Dirty Harry, and ignores the vast preponderance of numerical evidence. Even if we might find reason to question some of the statistics, the sheer weight of the numbers compels us to admit that if you a buy a gun, it is vastly more likely to be used to shoot yourself, to shoot someone you know, or to be accidentally shot at yourself or someone you know, than to ever be used to prevent a crime.

Henry Martin — March 9, 2010 at 8:54 pm

I think the “simplistic narrative” is the one in which residents of some cop-forsaken slum are equally unlikely to be victims of violent crime as suburban “Dirty Harry” wannabes. The reason there are more gun accidents than successful defenses is that the vast majority of gun owners will never in their lives be required to confront a criminal. Jackson & al. are threatened by them every day. Moreover, the existence of private handgun ownership deters violent crime where it otherwise might flourish.

It’s true: for many (most?) people, owning a gun is a terrible idea. But the reason they are more likely to injure themselves or others is that they don’t live in a basket-case city like Detroit where the police admit even a 911 call is potentially meaningless.

Sonny Bunch — March 10, 2010 at 10:00 am

I was trying to decide whether or not to do a whole post on this, but it seems unnecessary. A couple of points:

1.) It’s unreasonable to include suicides and murders in these statistics. If someone wants to kill themselves, they’re going to do it; if someone wants to kill a family member, they’re going to do it. Handguns aren’t the cause of those deaths, people are. If there was a rash of people hanging themselves, we wouldn’t ban belts, would we?

2.) If you look at accidental killings, the numbers are minuscule. If you break down the number of people who die accidentally in this country each year, gun deaths account for less than 1 percent of that number (something like 700 people total). If you exclude long guns and look only at handguns, that number drops even further. Handguns simply aren’t responsible for very many accidental deaths each year.

3.) Guns make an excellent deterrent. Look at the opening of that story on Detroit again: A man avoided a violent outburst from a drug dealer who had come for revenge simply by brandishing a shotgun and sitting on his porch. I know someone who has done the same thing: He flashed a handgun (which he was carrying legally with a concealed carry permit) in order to get an aggressive guy in a parking lot to back off. The vast, vast majority of handgun “uses” are in this manner. Examples like these are why I oppose gun control laws (as well as principle).

David Adesnik — March 10, 2010 at 5:01 pm

Who says we wouldn’t ban belts if suicide-by-hanging were more common?

We have to take off our shoes just because one clumsy terrorist tried to set off a shoe bomb. We can’t take more than 3oz of liquid on a plane because other terrorists tried to make a liquid bomb.

We love to treat the symptoms instead of the cause. I’m not well-versed in handgun statistics, but that may be another instance.

Freddie — March 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm

The reason there are more gun accidents than successful defenses is that the vast majority of gun owners will never in their lives be required to confront a criminal

Exactly right.