Now that we've got that out of the way... I was catching up on some old blog posts a few minutes ago and ran across Megan McArdle's tortured logic about Gun Statistics.
Exhibit 1:
A small number of) men like to murder their families with guns. But they also like to murder their families with knives, baseball bats, and their fists. Taking away the guns might somewhat reduce the number of homicides (it might also increase it; you're more likely to recover from a fatal-looking gunshot wound to the stomach than from having your head banged against the floor 80 times). But spousal murder is plenty easy without a gun.
Sigh... Where do we start.
(1) A firearm kills by propelling a sizable piece of lead at an extremely high velocity into the human body. Even a small caliber weapon (say, a .22) is an effective lethal weapon. The velocity is such that the victim has nearly no opportunity to defend him or herself.
In contrast, the speed of a knife, bat, bottle, or fist attack is considerably slower which increases the opportunity to: (a) evade, (b) counter-attack, or (c) call for help. I'm not saying that being attacked by an assailant wielding a melee weapon is safe... just that my chances of escaping death are greater in that scenario than encountering an assailant (who intends to kill) wielding a fire arm.
(2) McArdle seems to argue that a would-be assailant will kill with whatever is available. That assumption fails to recognize an important social fact: generally speaking, we suck at violence. Randall Collin's latest book on Violence makes a point that more criminologists should acknowledge. Contrary to popular belief violence is not hardwired into our evolutionary makeup and we are strongly socialized to to be violent. In consequence, successfully carrying out a physically violent encounter (unaided by a firearm) is exceedingly difficult. [Which is not to say that it doesn't happen...]. It takes much less effort to squeeze a trigger than it does to plunge a knife, or swing a bat.
Back to Ms. McArdle
On the other hand, many people who wave a gun at someone threatening, and thereby cause that person to go away, don't report it. How many? We don't know, because they don't report it. But I didn't report the mugging I foiled last January through strategically hunting for my keys in a well lighted portion of the street. I doubt I'd have been any more likely to do so if I'd waved a gun at him.
Now, it is possible that having a gun is actually on net dangerous to you and your family. But we have no evidence to support this notion, because all the statistics on the subject are crap. The denominator is what criminologists call a "dark number": one where there is no way to arrive at any reasonably credible estimate of its value.
I've seen Kleck's survey study suggesting that brandishing a weapon foils a large number of muggings. His findings are in line with Routine Activities Theory... by showing a weapon, I've just made myself a harder target. Most muggings are carried out by amateur or opportunistic criminals. But these same would-be criminals are just as easily scared away through other means (e.g., Ms. McArdle's fumbling for keys; an aggressive stance back at the mugger, etc). If you can defuse the attack without incurring the risks that come with holding a firearm, why not do so?
For the assailant that wouldn't be scared away... I'm not convinced that a firearm would make him back down. [McArdle disagrees with me here; there's no empirical data for either of us to rest our argument]. I hold to my earlier stated premise: most of us, were we to brandish a firearm, in such a scenario, are likely to be hurt. Or, hurt someone else unnecessarily.
On McArdle's dismissal of the Dark Figure; there actually is a credible way of estimating the dark figure. We take the estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (which are properly sampled and weighted) and compare them to the official crime statistics. This suggests that violent crime is under reported by a factor of 3 or more. HOWEVER...
Homicide and Aggravated Assualt have fairly low dark figures. Most homicides are committed with handguns and perpetuated by someone known to the victim. [Eg., as I tell my criminology classes, most homicides are fights that go to far (many involving alcohol or other intoxicants) comparably few are carried out by premeditative cold-blooded predators... which is the image the pro-gun lobby advances as the reason we need to arm ourselves.
I assert that many homicides would be avoided if a firearm was not present. Very few assaults advance to the point of death... (a) To take Ms. McArdle's example, it's awfully hard to bang someone's head on the floor enough times (say 12) to kill them. {Most victims will resist, obviously the scenario changes when we are talking about child abuse, or abuse of an invalid}. Anyone who has ever boxed will attest how tiring it is to throw punches. That's why boxers need to be in great shape. After 12 or 13 punches most of us are completely spent. Ever watch a bar fight? Don't blink, you'll miss it. Two drunk bozos through 12 punches between the two of them and they don't have the energy to go on. (b) The longer it takes to finish someone off, the more likely someone will intervene. Again, every bar fight that I've ever seen (not that I have a large N to generalize from) is broken up before anyone gets too messed up.
McArdle is right... I don't have hard data for the above paragraph. But she doesn't either.
The point is this. I think on balance, arming more people leads to more unnecessary death. That's why I don't keep firearms in my home. [Would be burglars, you're not likely to get a great return on your investment in burglarizing my house, soft target that it may be.] But that's a reality I think we need to live with. I don't begrudge anyone else the right to arm themselves if they think that will keep them safer. I think their firearm makes them less safe; but that's their choice.
2 comments:
McCardle makes the mistake of assuming that intent, whether in homicide or suicide, is clear and long-lasting. I don't have the statistics, but I'm sure that a lot of these are impulsive. When the outcome is not death but injury, the person does not go back and finish the job. For these impulsive assaults or attempts, the more deadly the weapon, the more likely it is that they'll end in death rather than injury.
"For the assailant that wouldn't be scared away... I'm not convinced that a firearm would make him back down."
Then you're INSANE. That's like saying if a lion will attack an antelope, then it will attack an elephant.
"[McArdle disagrees with me here; there's no empirical data for either of us to rest our argument]."
Just COMMON FREAKING SENSE.
" I hold to my earlier stated premise: most of us, were we to brandish a firearm, in such a scenario, are likely to be hurt. Or, hurt someone else unnecessarily."
One thing: BETTER HIM THAN ME.
We have very different ideas about what constitutes "necessity;" for me, it's ensuring my own safety against those who choose to ENDANGER it.
If someone is crazy or unbalanced enough to attack a gun-wielding defender, then that's justification enough for a bullet to the head.
Play your Ivory-tower games with your OWN life, not mine.
Post a Comment