The Myth of "Defensive Gun Use"

MaverickNH

NES Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
8,221
Likes
7,804
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0
Prof Hemenway from Harvard sets us straight on the "Myth" that guns are used by honest, law-abiding citizen for self-defense in Defensive Gun Use: What can we learn from new reports?

"Defensive gun use situations are quite diverse, and among the various categories of defensive gun use, a higher percentage of incidents in some of the categories seemed far less likely to be socially beneficial (e.g., drug-related, gang-like, escalating arguments) than in others (e.g., home invasions)...

In many cases, the defender did not look like an innocent. Cases, where the defender did not call 911 or was not around when the police arrived, often seemed especially suspicious. Indeed, in our subjective judgments, in about 19% of the reported incidents, it appeared to us that either both parties were engaging in illegal behavior (e.g., drug deals, gang-like violence), or it was difficult to distinguish the perpetrator from the victim (e.g., escalating arguments)...

In all the store robberies, it was usually clear who were the “bad guys”—the masked, armed, young men demanding money. But even here, gun use sometimes seemed more dangerous than beneficial. For example, after two men robbed a grocery store of $80, a clerk pulled out a gun and fired four shots at them. No one was hit, including, fortunately, the five young children in the store at the time. The robbers got away...

...in many cases of unoccupied vehicle theft it did not seem that public health was promoted when unarmed teens were shot and sometimes killed."



So, it seems that Hemenway's "judgement" on what is not socially beneficial and what is illegal may be quite different things - if only 1 in 5 DGUs are between two parties engaged in illegal behavior, are most of that other 80% using guns legally, but not in a socially beneficial manner? Fortunately, that's not his call...

*************************************

And more on his web site:

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use [11 publications with references here]


1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.


4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.


5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.


6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.


7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense
We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.


8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”


9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens
Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.


11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.
 
Harvard is a liberal think tank. I'll keep my guns for the small chance I will need them to protect my family and myself.
 
i don't have the patience to read and digest this now, but i will later. but those bullet points at the end of the post sound like they could be true. i see from the posts on top of me that it's sounding like he wants gun owners to turn in their guns. yeah, that's not gonna happen.
 
7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense
We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.
Strange. It is almost like there is something preventing 12-17 year olds from having access to guns for use in self-defense.
 
Harvard is a liberal think tank. I'll keep my guns for the small chance I will need them to protect my family and myself.
Yes - even if over half of gun use is not "socially beneficial" in some academics view, that doesn't mean I cannot keep and bear arms for personal use in hunting, target shooting, collecting and self-defense. Punish people for crimes of evil rather than crimes of violating administrative statue, whether they use guns or not - that's "socially beneficial" in my way of thinking.
 
I'm so sick of these people to try to come up with seemingly intelligent arguments as to why the average citizen shouldn't have access to firearms. At their core they don't believe that the second amendment should be protected and preserved. If they had any balls they would just come out and say it. Just because some constitutionally protected activities don't appeal to you that's fine, don't participate in them and mind your own business and leave everybody else alone that respects them. F*ck this guy, sounds like a first class jerk off that likes the smell of his own farts.

View: https://youtu.be/cJoGEqZfFDI
 
socially undesirable and illegal
it is pretty much the key - any self-defence conceptually is - like he stated above - 'socially undesirable'.
plus reinforces same old 'criminals are the victims' mantra. what`s new.
 
Isn't an opinion about guns written by someone who's never owned one or likely ever touched one like me trying to have an opinion on how to pilot the space shuttle ?
 
Hemenway is a far left opinionated academic. He's been using cooked books for a long time to write up white papers with academic imprimaturs for Bloomberg & Co to shove in everyone's faces but it's always based on pseudo science. Once in a while the Bloomberg people need some catnip and they find a ready ally in Hemenway who will weasel word his use cases to make it sound scientific that is unless you actually believe in science and can sniff out a phony very easily.
 
Back
Top Bottom